Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: While I recognise that brevity is the characteristic of Celtic questions, I none the less remind the House that it does help us to make greater progress.

SCOTLAND

Unemployment

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will convene a special conference on unemployment in Scotland under his chairmanship, to include all industrial organisations and local authorities.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): No, Sir.

Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that decision? Has he noticed that yesterday's unemployment figures showed that there are no fewer than 191,906 Scots out of work? Will he not hold such a meeting as I have suggested, preferably on Glasgow Green, where he could invite the 106,906 people who were in good jobs under a Tory Government but are now out of jobs under a Labour Government? He could then explain to them what was meant by "Back to Work with Labour".

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not think that Glasgow Green is an appropriate place. We discuss with the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the CBI, the Scottish Council (Development and Industry), the local authorities and others concerned the very serious problems of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman should look at the figures with some care. There has been a drop in seasonally adjusted un-

employment, and unemployment this month has improved in Scotland as against the rest of the United Kingdom. I thought that that might just be the signal for the hon. Gentleman to make some encouraging comments.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the anxiety about unemployment in Ayrshire was heightened today when we read in the Glasgow Herald that local authority deputations are in London trying to divert traffic from Prestwick to Edinburgh? Will he confirm that in no way will the present Government accept a diminution of the role of Prestwick airport, with all that that implies for the level of employment in the county?

Mr. MacKenzie: The deputations are not to me, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to what was said in the White Paper by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Grimond: In view of the increase in moonlighting, or the secondary economy, and also the difficulty of getting skilled labour for some jobs, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a reduction in taxation and still further improved training facilities might do something to reduce the unemployment figures?

Mr. MacKenzie: Now that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken over responsibility for the Manpower Services Commission in Scotland, there is a further arm of the Scottish Office dealing with the whole question of employment. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that special care is being taken over the matter of training and skill match. These studies are being conducted by the Commission, and the Government have taken careful note of the measures suggested by the Training Services Division. It is encouraging to note that many more young people are now in training and will go into training in future years.

Mr. Henderson: Leaving aside the question of young people who are going into training—which we welcome—I remind the right hon. Gentleman that many young people are also in the labour market. Can he indicate to those who have left school this year when they are likely to get their first job?

Mr. MacKenzie: No one wants to answer hypothetical questions about when people are going to get their first jobs. The Training Services Division does a lot for training. The hon. Gentleman should know that recently we introduced a youth opportunities programme. We now have also the special temporary employment programme. I recognise that these various short-term measures are no substitute for a real job, but they have been of considerable advantage in providing jobs for some 60,000 people in Scotland.

Mr. Buchan: If my right hon. Friend held such a meeting, would he also invite the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), along with his Scottish Tory cohorts, to explain that he wants complete cuts in grants and subsidies to industry? Is it not the grossest hypocrisy of the Opposition to complain about the unemployment situation when they wish to have massive cuts in public expenditure, which would double unemployment?

Mr. MacKenzie: If I were to speak at any conference concerned with unemployment, my first point would be that the Government, even in the course of the last year, in terms of selective financial assistance to industry, have given about £23 million to companies in Scotland and that this has been very helpful in safeguarding jobs and creating new ones. Secondly, we are all aware of the record of the Opposition in these matters. Thirdly, we are well aware of their record in voting against jobs for the shipyards, car workers, and many others.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that what he has said is a total distortion of Conservative policies and that the people of Scotland are fully aware of the simple fact that unemployment has doubled under this Government, and was never anything like as high as it now is when the Conservatives were in power?

Mr. MacKenzie: There was no distortion at all in what I said. The voting record of the Conservatives is perfectly clear. They voted against jobs for car workers and they voted against jobs for shipyard workers. We all know from the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)

that there would be massive cuts in public expenditure under a Conservative Government, and certainly this would have an effect on employment in Scotland.

Primary Schools (Class Sizes)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in view of the Educational Institute of Scotland conference decision to limit composite class sizes to 25 in primary schools, if he will provide the necessary finance to enable education authorities to employ more teachers in primary schools.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): The Government's expenditure plans include provision for the employment of teachers in excess of the standards which have been allowed for over the last few years, and this was reflected in the rate support grant settlement for 1978–79. It is, however, for education authorities to determine how the available resources should be used.

Mr. Lambie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one on the Labour Benches can justify a confrontation with the teachers at the end of August on this issue? Will he give an assurance that negotiations will continue between the EIS, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Education Department during the summer months in order to resolve this issue, and that he will provide the small amount of necessary finance to resolve this problem and provide the extra teachers?

Mr. Millan: I think that my hon. Friend knows that these matters are in the first instance for discussion between the management side and the teachers' side of the Scottish teachers' service and conditions committee. No doubt these matters are being pursued there, or will be pursued there.
As my original answer made clear, we are already providing finance very substantially over the standards laid down.

Mrs. Bain: Will the Secretary of State admit that the complacency shown in his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) is totally unacceptable to the teaching profession throughout Scotland? Is he aware that the rigid application of circular 819, which his Government have consistently refused to negotiate, has meant a levelling down


of standards in many educational establishments in Scotland, and that young children have suffered as a result of it?

Mr. Millan: The fact is that circular 819 and the Red Book are not being rigidly applied, and the number of teachers in Scottish schools at the present time is substantially beyond the figures laid down in the circular. At the present time there are. I think, about 1,300 teachers more than would be required to meet the standards in our Scottish schools.
As for the dispute mentioned by the hon. Lady, the present teachers' contract was, of course, negotiated in the committee by the management and the teachers' side, and that is where any dispute about it ought to be resolved.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Does the Minister appreciate the dangers of serious disruption in the education of primary schoolchildren which may arise as a result of this unilateral action by the EIS, a body which usually acts responsibly in these matters? Will he say what steps he will take immediately to try to put at rest the fears of parents whose children may well be affected within the next few weeks by this decision?

Mr. Millan: I can only repeat that these are matters for negotiation between the management and the teachers' side. That is what the management side—the local authorities—wants to happen. It wants negotiation to take place, and no doubt it will.

A75 (Gretna-Stranraer)

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for the early improvement of the A75 Gretna-Stranraer trunk road, with particular reference to a ring road at Dumfries.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): A contract has recently been awarded for an improvement at Shennanton, and nine other major schemes are planned for the road in the period up to March 1984. The need for a bypass of Dumfries will be discussed with Dumfries and Galloway regional council following the recent publication of its Dumfries traffic study.

Mr. Monro: Will the Minister come to Dumfries this weekend or next and see for himself the complete traffic chaos in

that town, which has earned it the reputation of being the worst bottleneck in Britain? Will he throw the whole weight of the Scottish Office into resolving the problem, following his discussions with the regional council and preparation of plans for the ring road?

Mr. McElhone: I know that the hon. Gentleman understands traffic jams. He and I were involved in them last weekend in places some miles away from Dumfries. Nevertheless, I think that he will accept from me that copies of the study report were received by the Scottish Office only on 21st June last and that we are still awaiting the technical appendices, without which the validity of any discussions or conclusions cannot be assessed.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware that the Newton Stewart bypass is nearing completion? Is he ready now to start on the construction of the next bypass in line? Which one will it be, and when will it start?

Mr. McElhone: I said in my main answer that nine other major schemes are planned for this road. I understand the difficulties of this road. It is worth pointing out that in these times of so-called difficulty with expenditure we spent £69·9 million on trunk roads and £124·3 million on other roads. That is a fair amount of money by any standards, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point and note the concern that he has expressed.

River Forth (Bridge)

Mr. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to authorise a new road bridge across the Forth between Kincardine and Stirling.

Mr. McElhone: None. It would be for the Central regional authority to consider the need for such a bridge and then determine whether and when to include it in the roads and transport programme for submission to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Reid: I think the Minister will be aware that both the Central regional authority and Fife have proposals on this subject. When they reach the Scottish Office, will he give special consideration to a road across the Forth from Alloa, thereby giving Clackmannanshire direct access to the motorway system and, secondly, creating a labour market for Bandeath?

Mr. McElhone: I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that it has never been the practice of any Government Department to make a judgment on proposals that it has not seen. We are still awaiting the regional authority decision on the question of an additional crossing. When we receive its views, we shall study them with some care, and take account of the hon. Gentleman's views.

Dundee Airport (Terminal Buildings)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the outcome of the planning appeal made in connection with the proposed new terminal buildings for Dundee airport.

Mr. Millan: Tayside regional council wants to re-site the existing terminal buildings at Riverside airport and has asked me to withdraw a direction I made in August 1977 restricting the grant of planning permission for further development at the airport until the approval of a structure plan. I have written to the council asking for further information on its proposal before I reach a decision on its request.

Mr. Wilson: I appreciate the difficulties that the Minister faces, but this matter has now been under review by his Department for about four months. Will he bear in mind that Dan-Air has indicated an interest in putting in a scheduled service to Dundee airport but that because the present terminal facilities are over a quarter of a mile away from the runway it has declined to do so? Does he agree that this matter is very important, if Dundee is to be brought into the mainstream of air commmunications in Scotland?

Mr. Millan: I know the problems at the airport and I know the reasons why the authority would like to re-site the terminal, but I think that I am entitled to ask it for information, for example, about environmental considerations and whether this could be taken as a further development of the airport, which, of course, is not really in line with the previous direction. My Department wrote to it on 11th July. When I get a reply I shall certainly consider it as quickly as possible.

Mr. Rifkind: In considering the future of Scottish airports, will the Secretary of State take account of the delegation from Lothian regional council, which is visiting the Department of Trade this afternoon to press for Edinburgh airport to be allowed to utilise scheduled transatlantic routes?

Mr. Speaker: We must have fair play. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pent-lands (Mr. Rifkind) ought to have tabled a Question about Edinburgh airport.

Housing Plans

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the housing plans submitted by local authorities.

Mr. Millan: Most authorities have produced creditable housing plans, given the difficulties involved in introducing the new system. In general, however, authorities recognise that they will require to make a more thorough examination of housing needs and improve arrangements for forecasting and managing their spending programmes. My Department will be discussing these aspects with authorities.

Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend convinced that all local authorities are giving sufficient priority to building more council houses? For example, will he point out to the SNP-controlled Falkirk district council that there are more than 300 families on the waiting list in the Denny, Banknock and Bonnybridge area alone, yet it has submitted no plans to build any council houses during the current year?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I need to point it out to the council, because this has already been done by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Bain: In that context, will the Secretary of State look very seriously at the decision taken by Strathclyde regional council to overturn plans submitted for housing extensions in Strathkelvin district and Cumbernauld?

Mr. Millan: I really cannot answer that sort of detailed question on the general Question that is on the Order Paper at the moment.

Mr. Younger: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that as a matter


of policy he will not approve any housing plan which does not include a firm proposal for dealing with derelict council property and derelict estates, before even more of them fall into disrepair than are now falling into disrepair all over the country?

Mr. Millan: That is not happening all over the country. The position varies from one area to another. So far as there is a problem, it is taken into account in any response that I make to a housing plan.

University Entrants

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the light of evidence sent to him, he is satisfied with the system of progression of Scottish schoolchildren from school to university, particularly to universities in the United Kingdom outside Scotland; what information he has on how many Scottish schoolchildren attend university elsewhere in the United Kingdom and which universities are principally involved: and if he expects the pattern to change in the future.

Mr. McElhone: The opportunities for Scottish schoolchildren to enter a university are as good as those for pupils in any other part of the United Kingdom. In 1976 13 per cent. of British undergraduate entrants to United Kingdom universities were of Scottish origin. In that year about 1,700 Scottish undergraduates were studying at universities elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Information about the individual universities they attended is not readily available. I do not foresee any significant change in the present pattern.

Mr. Hamilton: Has my hon. Friend now read the report in The Times Educational Supplement, and the report in the Glasgow Herald of a few weeks ago, describing a private scheme whereby Oxford University operates through a few select, mainly fee-paying, secondary schools in Scotland regarding entrance to that university. If that kind of elitism prevails, how long will it be before my hope is fulfilled of getting a Lumphanan boy as head of the Civil Service?

Mr. McElhone: I think that my hon. Friend will have to wait until a day

when justice is done and he becomes the Master of Trinity.

Mr. Crawford: As a graduate of an English university, may I assure the Minister that I never found it to be a hindrance to my joining the Scottish National Party?

Mr. McElhone: I am afraid that most hon. Members would not agree.

Economic Situation

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now publish a White Paper on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a White Paper on the Scottish economy.

Mr. Millan: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State not think that he has an obligation to rethink the Government's economic policy and present new proposals to the Scottish people, as unemployment is almost 200,000 in the height of summer, despite the boost in Scotland of tourist jobs? Is it not now very clear that the Government were elected on a bogus prospectus and that their plans are not working? Can the right hon. Gentleman say in particular how many jobs were lost because of the sudden removal of the regional employment premium and how many further jobs are expected to be lost as a result of increasing national insurance contributions?

Mr. Millan: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already mentioned yesterday's unemployment figures, which showed a further reduction of seasonally adjusted unemployment in Scotland. The relative position of Scotland, compared with the United Kingdom as a whole, has improved over the past few months. I certainly hope that it will continue to improve, because we want to see the figures considerably reduced.

Mr. Henderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone is becoming a little fed up listening to him giving the same old story and playing the same old record, month after month, at Scottish Question Time, and that the silver lining


never seems to appear? Are the Government not publishing a White Paper because they do not know what to put in it or because they dare not show in it what the situation is?

Mr. Millan: If I thought that it would be useful to publish a White Paper I would do so. I do not think that it would be appropriate at present.

Mr. Gourlay: If my right hon. Friend were to change his mind and publish a White Paper, would he be in a position to indicate what progress had been made with the Moss Morran project and the radio hazard affecting Moss Morran and Fife? The project will provide a considerable number of jobs in that area.

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend knows the position. I have made a provisional decision, but I will be circulating other documents about the possible radio hazards. I hope to be able to do that quite soon.

Mr. Monro: Where unemployment is as it is in Dumfries and Galloway, of the order of 9 per cent. rising in Upper Nithsdale to 19 per cent., does not the right hon. Gentleman think that much more fundamental action is required by the Government? Does he agree that he must look at areas of taxation in relation to industry, employees and small businesses if he is to make any dramatic impact in the next few months?

Mr. Millan: I think that it was only at the last Scottish Question Time that I gave quite a number of examples of the way in which the burden of taxation on small firms had been reduced by this Government. It is also true that for larger firms corporation tax is a very small burden at present.

Devolution (Referendum)

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects that the referendum on the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland will now be held.

Mr. Millan: I cannot give a date at present.

Mr. Knox: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the sooner the question of devolution is sorted out completely,

and the uncertainty removed, the better? Will he fix the date for a referendum in September, with a view to having the Assembly elections as soon as possible after that?

Mr. Millan: I agree that it would be useful if we could get the Bill on the statute book as soon as possible. As I believe the hon. Gentleman knows, it is proceeding pretty well at present. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should direct his remarks to the other place.

Mr. Sillars: Why was it that for the European Community referendum the Government could give us the date of polling before we reached the vote on Second Reading, yet now that we have completed virtually all the stages of the Scotland Bill they are still unable to give a date for the referendum? Is my right hon. Friend aware that on previous occasions he said that there are many reasons for this circumstance? Can he give us just one?

Mr. Millan: The circumstances concerning the EEC Bill and the Scottish Bill are entirely different. My hon. Friend must be aware of that.

Mr. Reid: Is it the case that the date of the referendum cannot be announced until the difficulties over dead men having the vote, double voting for students, and so on, are cleared out of the way? What progress is being made to clear up that problem?

Mr. Millan: These are matters that will be relevant when we discuss the Order in Council on the referendum. I have been giving a good deal of thought to the matter in recent months. Some of the problems, at least, are not insuperable. The hon. Gentleman knows the Government's view on the 40 per cent. hurdle. We do not believe that it should have gone into the Bill.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance to the House today that before we rise for the Summer Recess he will intimate the date when the referendum will take place?

Mr. Millan: I do not think that I can add to what I have already said. The hon. Gentleman is very impatient to get the referendum, of course, because at one time he was a keen supporter of devolution.

Local Government Employees (Pay)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement regarding the negotiations between the employers' and employees' sides of the National Joint Council and his Department regarding the anomalies in the pay and conditions of local government employees since local government reorganisation.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: My noble Friend the Minister of State has arranged to meet both sides on 28th July. The resolution of anomalies must be done through the normal negotiating machinery for pay settlements and in the light of pay policy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within the same employing authority there can be a difference of as much as £20 a week in the wages of employees doing exactly the same job? That has been going on now for more than three years. Does the Minister regard that as fair? Is he aware that this matter has been shuttled back and forth between local authorities, the NJC and the Government Department responsible for pay policy? In the interests of equity and justice, will he please do everything he can to resolve this?

Mr. MacKenzie: I understand that there are anomalies. My right hon. Friend is to see the organisation concerned, at its request. This has to be a matter for employers and employees. There is nothing in the Government regulations or guidelines that prevents the anomalies from being ironed out, provided, of course, the organisations concerned regard the guidelines seriously.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the differences in pay originally arose because the people were employed by different education authorities—in the one case by the city of Aberdeen, which was a Labour-controlled education authority, paying reasonable wages, and in the other by a county authority failing to live up to its responsibilities? Might not one of the reasons why the levelling-up process is not taking place quite so quickly be that control of education in the Grampian

region is now in the hands of a Conservative administration?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I can only repeat what I said in my original answer and in the following supplementary answer. This matter must be resolved by the local authorities and their employees within the Government guidelines. It is very important that it should be done in that way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Malaria

No. 11. Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of malaria cases in Scotland at the most recent convenient date; and if he will make a statement.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Forty-one cases of malaria were notified in Scotland during the first six months of this year. There is no significant change from the level of notifications in 1976 and 1977.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that a statement was made on the radio by the medical officer for Lanarkshire that the number of cases was on the increase, not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom? Is enough publicity given to the matter? Is knowledge of the areas where people can be vulnerable to this illness made available? Is the appropriate medical treatment also available to those who wish to visit those parts of the world?

Mr. Ewing: It is true that the number of cases is on the increase. In the United Kingdom as a whole there has been an increase of about 25 per cent., but there has not been that increase in Scotland. As I said, the notifications in Scotland reflect no change between 1976 and 1977, although between the previous two years there was an increase of about 80 per cent. We are concerned about such diseases. The chief medical officer for Scotland has written to doctors in Scotland to draw the matter to their attention.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister accept that in the days when there was a tropical diseases unit in Scotland in the 1960s a higher proportion of the population, per capita, had malaria diagnosed than in England and Wales, and that the position is now reversed? Is he satisfied that we have sufficient facilities in Scotland to provide for the early diagnosis of malaria cases, so that we can have speedy cures?

Mr. Ewing: I certainly could not accept the implication of that question, which is that there are many people going around Scotland with malaria simply because it has not been diagnosed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that anyone with malaria will very soon have it diagnosed. I am satisfied that Scotland has the facilities to meet what is a fairly low level of demand.

Fishery Protection Services

Sir John Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fishery protection vessels are now operating in waters of the 200-mile limit off the west of Scotland; and how many aircraft patrols fly each week over this area.

Mr. Millan: Two offshore vessels and either two or three inshore vessels are normally on fishery protection patrol in west of Scotland waters at any one time. Additional surface surveillance is available as circumstances require. Royal Air Force Nimrods patrol the area regularly and are currently giving it close attention.

Sir J. Gilmour: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there will be a big extra strain on the fishery protection services when, in October, the pout box is extended and when—I think it is in November—the minimum mesh sizes have to be surveyed much more rigorously than before—a matter in which the aeroplanes cannot play a part?

Mr. Millan: I think that I have said in the House before that I believe that our fishery protection forces are adequate to do the job. I think that all experience shows that that is so. Perhaps I may take the west of Scotland as an example. Since 1st January this year there have been boardings of 66 foreign vessels, and there is a similar level of activity in other parts of our waters.

Mr. Watt: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is blatantly obvious that his fishery protection vessels are not adequate to do the job? Is he aware that his Minister of State was unaware of the presence of Norwegian vessels in the west of Scotland in recent weeks? Is it not time he sought the co-operation of the industry much more than he has in the past, in reporting the presence of poachers?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. There is no question of inadequate facilities. We were perfectly aware that Norwegian and Dutch vessels were fishing off the west of Scotland before the ban was imposed.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present there is a considerable amount of aerial surveillance in the North Sea and over the west coast, as a result of which reports are made on all vessels, whether they are passing through or whether they are fishing? This is a worthwhile scheme, operated by the Nimrods. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to keep our fishery protection fleet and the aircraft surveillance operating at full speed in order to check quickly what has happened?

Mr. Millan: Yes, Sir. I certainly agree. We must deploy the forces depending on where the problem is at any particular time. But there is no evidence that we have inadequate surveillance. The industry does not complain about this.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Has the right hon. Gentleman gathered from the industry that it is satisfied that the protection available will be adequate to deal with the substantial increase in the work load in consequence of the extra conservation measures?
On a separate matter, will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to indicate whether he will ensure that any stock measures taken in the west coast mackerel fisheries are appropriate to the needs of the market? In particular, will he give an assurance that the measures will not be more restrictive than those implemented in the south-west fisheries, bearing in mind the relationship of this matter to the conservation measures that we have discussed?

Mr. Millan: I frequently see representatives of the industry. There has never been a complaint to me, over all the period that I have been meeting them, about the level of surveillance in the North Sea or anywhere else.
On the hon. Gentleman's second question, discussions are going on between the fishermen and my Department. There are certain complications on the question of licensing, the levels of catch allowed, and so on, for mackerel fishing, but we are dealing with a substantially increased quota at present. There is a good deal of mackerel available and we are discussing with the industry how best to license it.

List D Schools

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now reached a decision regarding the administration of List D schools.

Mr. McElhone: My right hon. Friend hopes to do so shortly.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware of the uncertainty felt by managers and staff in these institutions as the discussions drag on, as he must know they have done, for several years? When will he make a statement and come to a conclusion on this matter? Will he do so before the House rises? If not, why not?

Mr. McElhone: I cannot promise that my right hon. Friend will manage to make a statement before the House rises, which will not be long. But the hon. Member should know that I have had many meetings with the many interests involved. The major problem is that the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland, the STUC, the staff associations and others are opposed to the transfer of the schools to the regional authorities. The hon. Gentleman's Government and our Government took the view that the schools should come under the control of democratically elected personnel who are in the regional authorities. That is the main difficulty. We must resolve it by winning the argument. The discussions are going on, and my right hon. Friend hopes to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Lambie: Can my hon. Friend explain to me why the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the STUC

and the staffs concerned in the schools are all against changing the administration of the schools? Can he explain who is in favour of it?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry that we do not have a long enough Question Time to deal with that question.

Mr. Lambie: Give us one who is in favour.

Mr. McElhone: Perhaps I may be allowed to name two or three. They include the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Advisory Council on Social Work, the Association of Directors of Social Work, and the reporters to children's panels. I think that we would all agree that the combination of the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and the STUC is a formidable one.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does the Minister agree that while this haggle is going on grave difficulties within the schools require to be resolved? Has he any comment to make on, for example, the length of stay of the pupils in the schools and the plans, which at present appear to be in total limbo, for what happens to the pupils when they leave the schools?

Mr. McElhone: I do not deny that there is a problem about youngsters leaving the schools and about the follow-up. I have had many discussions with the bodies which run the schools, including the Churches.
As for the time spent in the schools, the right hon. Lady should know that because of the particular attention that my Department and I have been paying to the matter the waiting list has shrunk. We are getting a quicker turnover in the number of youngsters using the schools. I have a group of officials examining a quicker, much better use of the schools by the youngsters and the authorities which send them to the schools. But there is a problem, and I do not deny it. We are looking at it as best we can.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Has not the decision-making process been dragging on for about three years? The Government have also failed to implement their promise in connection with the Children Act 1975 that they would introduce reforms in the children's panels. Is not


that an indication also of the paralysis in decision-making that seems to affect the Scottish Office these days?

Mr. McElhone: I would think that the recent election results show more of a paralysis within the Scottish National Party. Going on to the major point, I can say that we are aware that there is a great deal of interest in List D schools at present.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned children's panels. He should also know that we have been consulting the various bodies about the extended powers of children's panels. We are looking at this. However, there is no easy answer to this matter. The hon. Gentleman should also know that 18 months ago I initiated a scheme to create community parents, that is to say, to take young offenders out of the institutions and put them into ordinary working-class homes. That scheme is working. Indeed, Strathclyde has now suggested that it be extended throughout Scotland. I am not entirely satisfied with the running of its List D schools. I have a great deal of admiration for the people who work in them. I believe that changes have to be made, although serious consideration must be given to them, after consulting the many bodies involved in the exercise, before making announcements at the Dispatch Box.

Friarton Bridge, Perth

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he now expects the Friarton Bridge, Perth, to be opened.

Mr. McElhone: Recent bad weather has delayed completion, but it is hoped that one carriageway with a two-way working will be open by the end of July. The second carriageway should be completed by the end of September.

Mr. Crawford: Why will the M85 over the Friarton Bridge be the only piece of motorway bridging in the United Kingdom not to have lights on it? Is not that discrimination against Scotland? When will the Scottish Office do something about it? This is an oil route.

Mr. McElhone: I could give many answers to that question. I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Gentleman said earlier that he

was educated at an English university. We all have handicaps. I am sorry that the other part of the double act keeps making noises, so that I cannot get my sparkling supplementary replies in. Therefore, I shall let my case rest.

Sir John Gilmour: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is gross discrimination against the kingdom of Fife, where one has to pay to get in and out on toll bridges, whereas one can cross on the Friarton Bridge for free?

Mr. McElhone: I cannot answer that question without notice. I shall convey the point to my right hon. and noble Friend who deals with these matters on a day-to-day basis.

Mr. Younger: As Scotland has had a particularly good spring and summer, how is it that the Scottish Office appears to be suffering particularly bad weather?

Mr. McElhone: The paucity of questions coming from Opposition Members today does not indicate a great deal of interest in these matters. The difference in Scotland has not been the weather; it has been the change in political climate, to the advantage of the Government.

Lewis Offshore Limited

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the position of Lewis Offshore Ltd., in the Western Isles.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: The Government have considered a number of proposals, but in the absence of orders no solution has emerged which would provide a secure future for the yard. I understand that virtually all the remaining employees were made redundant on 30th June but that the company is keeping the yard on a care and maintenance basis in the hope of attracting further orders.

Mr. Winterton: Is the Minister aware that the problems of Scotland are not the sole prerogative of those who live in Scotland or of those who represent Scottish constituencies? Is he aware that a Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee visited Scotland and the Western Isles, and is deeply concerned about the problems of employment in the Western Isles? Will he also appreciate that Lewis Offshore Ltd. is vital to the future


prosperity and well-being of the Western Isles? Bearing in mind the Government's considerable involvement in North Sea oil through BNOC, will he ensure that orders by BNOC are brought forward to ensure that Lewis Offshore Ltd. continues to play a part in the life of the Western Isles?

Mr. MacKenzie: I take the hon. Gentleman's first point. Any hon. Member, irrespective of where he comes from, is entitled to be interested in Scottish affairs. Indeed, as we have always said from the Dispatch Box, we want to preserve the economic integrity of the United Kingdom. I noted the fact that the hon. Gentleman finds a great deal in favour of BNOC, which indicates his support for nationalisation, but I am bound to say to him that I cannot ask BNOC to direct work to any particular yard in that way. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a shortage of orders and that a number of yards in Scotland are in competition. It would be very wrong for the Government to try to direct anyone to a particular yard.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was great anger and frustration in the area over the failure of the Government to provide the very modest sum that was required to keep the yard going until order business picked up? Is he aware that within two months the unemployment rate has doubled, from 6 per cent. to 12 per cent.? Will he bear that in mind?

Mr. MacKenzie: The right hon. Gentleman might give the Government a little credit for the fact that a great deal of Government money was put into this facility in the first place. He might turn his attention and his criticism to those in the company who are responsible for this situation. After all, we in Government have given considerable financial assistance in order to provide employment in Stornoway.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while there is great disappointment at the final results at Lewis Offshore Ltd., there was a great deal of appreciation for the work done in making available to the company the possibility of tenders when work becomes available? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Lewis Offshore Ltd. was

offered temporary employment subsidy, but that this could not be given because the company refused to withdraw its redundancy notices?

Mr. MacKenzie: I indicated to the company, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, that the temporary employment subsidy was available. I also indicated this fact when I met the Lewis action group, but the company did not take this up because it was not prepared to accept the conditions connected with the temporary employment subsidy.

Business Studies Teachers

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement as to the future status of those teaching business studies in Scottish schools if the present three-year diploma in commerce course is replaced by a new four-year degree course.

Mr. McElhone: The Scottish teachers' salaries memorandum 1976 recognises teachers holding the diploma in commerce awarded by the board for the diploma in commerce as equivalent for salary purposes to graduate teachers. Those holding the diploma with honours are recognised as equivalent to honours graduates. Any change in this arrangement would be a matter for the Scottish Teachers' Salaries Committee.

Mr. Galbraith: Will the hon. Gentleman give a little more thought to this matter? A great deal of concern has been caused, and I have had many letters from constituents. Surely, if the qualification is to be changed those who have been teaching under the old qualification should not be placed in an inferior status.

Mr. McElhone: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that various bodies are involved, as there are in all aspects of education. There are the Council for National Academic Awards, which is an independent body, the General Teaching Council, which is also an independent body, and the Scottish Teachers Salaries Committee, which has an independent chairman. Discussions are still going on. So far as I am aware, no action will be taken which will jeopardise the salary position of those who at present hold this award.

Tertiary Education

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the setting up of a tertiary education council; and whether he will institute an inquiry into post-school education, in view of the interests in this possibility shown by the Department of Education and Science.

Mr. Millan: There has been a very encouraging response to the consultative paper that I issued earlier this year. The proposal to establish a council has been generally welcomed, and I hope to make an announcement shortly about its terms of reference. The comments that I have received have not persuaded me of the need for a separate inquiry into post-school education.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that this statement will be made before the House rises for the recess, especially in view of the fact that many weeks ago he gave an assurance, in a parliamentary answer, that a statement would be made shortly?

Mr. Millan: We are getting many requests today. I suppose it depends on when the recess comes. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that I hope to make an announcement about this matter very shortly.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that will be much welcomed by the Scottish council of the Labour Party, which has been pressing for such a council for some time and, indeed, for an inquiry into tertiary education? In considering the appointment of members to the council, will he ensure that those members are there in their own right and not as delegates representing sectional interests? I believe that that has been one of the problems of the General Teaching Council. Finally, will he also include the question of the relationships of the various sectors of tertiary education and the possibility of cross-transference of students?

Mr. Millan: My hon. Friend's latter point is the kind of problems which the council, when established, could well consider. I shall certainly take account of

what he said in the earlier part of his supplementary question. I want anyone appointed to the council to take a very wide view of its work and not simply to represent one interest.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Has the Minister considered the effect of devolution on this inquiry? Might it not prove to be just a waste of time?

Mr. Millan: The hon. Member is remarkably ignorant, even for him. This inquiry arises out of devolution. We want to have a council that will embrace post-school education—which will be under the Assembly—and the university sector The inquiry is specifically designed to deal with the situation when the Assembly is established.

King's Quarry, Croy (Dust Emissions)

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to monitor dust emissions from King's Quarry. Croy.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate measures periodically the grit and dust emission from the two coating plants and inspects the premises regularly. The inspectorate is discussing with the firm the practicability of further action to reduce other emissions of dust—for example. from the crushers and the stockpiles of crushed rock. Cumbernauld district council has installed one gauge at the nearest houses to measure deposits of grit and dust

Mrs. Bain: Is the Minister aware that my constituents in Croy are grateful for the recent interest shown by the Scottish Office in this problem? However, does he agree that if it is shown that there is a high level of dust emission to the disadvantage of my constituents in an environmental and health sense he will join me in pressing for new regulations that will be more effective?

Mr. MacKenzie: We are carefully examining the work not only at this particular quarry but at others throughout the country In this particular case the firm has a reasonably good record in undertaking a useful job. I can asusre the hon. Lady that the situation will be constantly monitored, that discussions will take place and that suggestions will be made about how to improve it.

"NOT PROVEN" VERDICT

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Lord Advocate what discussions he has had with the Law Commission regarding the operation of the "not proven" verdict in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have had no discussions on this subject with the Scottish Law Commission. However, I am in favour of retaining this form of verdict.

Mr. Dempsey: Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered that the "not proven" verdict in Scotland was introduced to give some degree of protection against the contingency of unfair trials arising out of the repressive statute introduced during the reign of Charles II, 1660 to 1685? This is no longer a threat to honest justice in this country. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that it has been reported recently that 30 persons charged with murder were, in spite of insufficient evidence, found not proven guilty? These people have to live under the cloud of suspicion for the rest of their lives. Is it not time that my right hon. and learned Friend ended this system of lazy justice in Scotland?

The Lord Advocate: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that acquittal by a court is a sign of injustice. Surely in the very circumstances that he describes it would appear that justice had been done. The suggestion that the verdict of not proven is illogical and is out of date is unfounded. I should have thought that it was eminently logical. One may think that a man has committed a crime, but the requirements of the law have not quite been met. In such circumstances it would seem wrong to give such a person a certificate of innocence. The Bryden Committee on identification procedure recently drew attention to the fact that the "not proven" verdict is a very important safeguard against injustice, for example, through misidentification.

Mr. Rifkind: Will the Lord Advocate accept that the "not proven" verdict is an essential safeguard because in Scotland, unlike in England and Wales, a person can be convicted of the most serious crime on an eight-to-seven vote

of the jury? A substantial majority verdict is required south of the border.

The Lord Advocate: On this occasion I agree with the hon. Member without qualification.

LAW SOCIETY OF SCOTLAND

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate when he intends next to meet the Law Society of Scotland.

The Lord Advocate: I have arranged to meet the president of the Law Society of Scotland on 28th July 1978.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the Law Society is experiencing considerable inconvenience because documents issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in London are available often 24 hours later in Scotland? Will he have a word with the Civil Service Minister to see whether documents issued in London can he made available in Scotland at the same time and not a good deal later, as appears to be the practice at present?

The Lord Advocate: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is complaining about or praising the Stationery Office. If documents issued in London are available in Scotland within 24 hours, I should have thought that that was a matter for praise. If he is saying that such documents should be issued at an identical time in Scotland and England, I shall have to look into the matter to see whether it is possible.

Mr. Grimond: When the Lord Advocate meets the Law Society, will he discuss the continuing shortage of lawyers in certain parts of Scotland? Will he ask the Law Society whether it could cut down the period of legal education and encourage firms to take on more apprentices?

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman has taken up this matter with me on previous occasions. I have looked into it. However, it is very difficult to achieve a solution which does not involve some degree of direction of professionally qualified people. That, of course, would be unacceptable to the legal profession. The right hon. Member's last point is a good suggestion which I shall look into.

Mr. William Hamilton: When the Lord Advocate meets representatives of the Law Society, will he raise with them the question of the report of the Law Reform Commission in Scotland on wife battering and property rights in the matrimonial home? Will he indicate what steps he is taking to implement the proposals in the report?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend is doubtless aware that implementation of the proposals mooted in this memorandum would not be my responsibility. That would be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The memorandum in question is merely a discussion document; it is not of the nature of firm recommendations or proposals.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: When the Lord Advocate meets representatives of the Law Society, will he listen patiently to their concern about the injustice of the criminal summary appeals procedure where there is a rigid enforcement of the 10 days but where the legal aid certificate covers only the advice and not the very difficult area of legal expertise and drafting the grounds of the appeal? Does he agree that unrepresented appellants who are nervous and who do not have a copy of the judge's charge have the scales of justice weighted against them? What proposals does he offer us to put this matter right?

The Lord Advocate: I should be wise to say that I will listen.

GLASGOW SHERIFF COURT

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate when he last paid an official visit to the Glasgow sheriff court.

The Lord Advocate: I visited Glasgow sheriff court on 14th July 1978.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Lord Advocate satisfied with the progress made in improving conditions in the sheriff court? Conditions have been appalling in recent times. In particular, can he say whether progress has been made in providing separate accommodation for witnesses for the defence and witnesses for the prosecution? Also, has progress been made on dealing with the delays in the court?

The Lord Advocate: On the first matter, I have already indicated the pro-

vision of two additional sheriff and jury courts. This has been of great assistance from the point of view of delay and better allocation of accommodation. However, it would be wrong to conceal the fact that the problem of accommodation is very acute in Glasgow sheriff court, and I cannot really hold out any prospect of being able to be certain that witnesses for the prosecution and defence will be kept in separate accommodation as long as the present stringent accommodation continues.
There are about 60 police officers who assist with this problem in the court buildings in Glasgow. They have the problem very much in mind and they do what they can within the limits of the existing accommodation.
On the point about delay, I am happy to tell the House that the number of cases waiting but not yet ready for preparation was down from 248 in May to 230 in June. There are indications that there is also a drop at the other end of the system—the cases about to go to trial. At the same time, I would not conceal that when one gets on with the preparation of cases there is obviously a bulge which must work its way through.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Has my right hon. and learned Friend had any representations that divorce cases should be heard in the Glasgow sheriff court, since there is a great deal of disquiet about taking High Court divorce action? Can he answer the question that is being asked widely in Glasgow and other parts of Scotland—why is it that Princess Margaret can get a divorce for £18 when she has considerable assets, while ordinary citizens in Scotland have to pay £400 or £500 for a divorce in the High Court?

The Lord Advocate: I have had no such representations, but I stress that I have already undertaken to inquire into the cost of divorce. I have made arrangements for the information to be obtained within the next few months.

CROWN OFFICE

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied with the system of appointing people to public positions in the Crown Office.

The Lord Advocate: I have no reason to be dissatisfied with the arrangements


for appointments to positions in the Crown Office.

Mr. Canavan: As this may be the last Scottish Question time before my right hon. and learned Friend retires, may I wish him every success for the future and hope that he does not follow the Tory precedent of appointing himself to the Bench? Does he agree that one of the most cogent reasons for voting Labour—if people are concerned about the future of law and order in Scotland—is to ensure that the post of Lord Advocate does not go to someone like the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn)?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has raised a number of issues which quite properly should be put down as separate Questions.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the last Lord Advocate most certainly did not appoint himself to the Bench?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman is right. The appointments are made by Her Majesty.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Miss Harvie Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on how to resolve my dilemma over Question No. 12, which was not called because the hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Hooley) was not present but which affects my constituency? Is there any way in which I can now make clear that the difficulty referred to at Hunters-ton B power station poses no possibility of danger to the public by nuclear radiation nor is there any chance of it?

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the right hon. Lady that is the best point of order I have heard for a long time, especially since it was not really a point of order. It was well made.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden) be kind enough to leave his point of order until after statements? As a general rule I wish to take points of order arising out out Questions immediately after Question

Time but to take other points of order after statements have been made.

OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I shall, with permission, make a statement about the reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
The Queen's Speech at the opening of this Session stated that legislative proposals would be brought forward for the reform of section 2.
The White Paper published today sets out with some precision the substance of the legislation with which, building on the work done by Lord Franks and his committee, the Government propose to replace section 2.
The House will recall that I gave a broad indication of the Government's thinking in the statement I made on 22nd November 1976. I said then that we had concluded that section 2 should be replaced by an official information Act on the broad lines recommended by the Franks committee but that there should be certain departures from the committee's conclusions. In particular, there should be no criminal sanctions for the disclosure of information in the economic sphere or for Cabinet and Cabinet committee documents, irrespective of their content and security classification.
We also proposed to create a separate protected category for information relating to security and intelligence, and we proposed to cover more defence and international relations information than Franks had recommended, although we now conclude that the test for criminal sanctions in these fields should—as Franks recommended—be the test of causing serious injury rather than being merely prejudicial to the nation.
We also make clear in the White Paper that we intend to extend the protection which the Franks committee envisaged for confidences of the citizen. We propose not just to protect any such information given to the Government but to protect confidential information held by the Government about private individuals and concerns, from whatever source it has come.
I shall not attempt now to deal with all the other detailed proposals in the


White Paper, but I would draw the attention of the House to an important safeguard we intend to introduce, which is additional to those in the Franks report and which relates to the classification of information. It will be for the AttorneyGeneral—or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate—to authorise the entering in evidence of a certificate by the departmental Minister concerned that information which is the subject of a prosecution was properly classified at the time of its disclosure. This is set out in paragraph 24 of the White Paper.
Over the years, section 2 has attracted much criticism because of its catch-all character. The legislation we propose will answer that criticism, and the White Paper itself will allow a discussion to take place before legislation, and not, as with section 2, after legislation had been introduced.
With regard to open government in general, it is the view of the Government that reform of section 2 is not only a much-needed improvement of the criminal law but a necessary preliminary to greater openness. Our prime concern so far has been to increase the flow of information to the public in the manner announced by the Prime Minister on 24th November 1976. Much more information is now being released to the public, who are thus better informed than ever before. Indeed, the working assumption is now that, once Ministers have reached their conclusion on a particular major policy study, associated factual and analytical material will be published. In addition, the Government have continued to keep generally abreast with the experience in open government overseas.
With regard to legislation to put the Government under a statutory duty to disclose information on demand, we have not yet examined in depth how overseas experience might be applied in our own constitutional system. This is a complex matter, and it will need to be studied carefully. As the White Paper states,
we shall initiate a more detailed study than has so far been possible of overseas experience and its relevance to our own constitutional system, in order to see what further action, whether by means of legislation or by non-statutory amendments, may be desirable, and we shall announce our conclusions from this study in due course.

Sir M. Havers: We thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. We generally welcome the White Paper, and in particular the second thoughts about a freedom of information Act.
The principal difference between us and the Government lies in the manner of review of classification. Is he aware that we still find it unacceptable that the Minister responsible should be judge and jury in his own cause, even with the safeguard in the Attorney-General's consent to the prosecution, which will place an additional and unnecessary burden on him? We must ask the Home Secretary to undertake to reconsider this matter and perhaps to adopt our suggestion of three wise men—a method used by him when considering deportation in security cases.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is of the utmost importance that the public should be satisfied that information to which any Government seek to apply criminal sanctions is properly and fairly classified for good reasons? In our view, the public would not accept a certificate from a Minister as conclusive evidence, as it would be in a court of law under this proposal. An impartial and independent committee is essential to achieve confidence in the new system and is a condition on which we would insist in any new legislation.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) referred to the White Paper in general, and I am grateful for what he said. He also referred to the subject of classification, which I have found one of the most difficult points to resolve for the purposes of the White Paper. I think that it is a matter for discussion.
I was a member of the Franks committee. It was felt on that committee that classification was essentially a Government responsibility. Although in most cases the Minister would not know the classification on a document, when the time came to put this in certificate form to a court he would have to take the responsibility. That was our view on the Franks report and that is why the additional provision has been included.
I believe that this and many other matters need to be discussed. When section 2 was included in 1911, there was no discussion of the matter. We want there


to be discussion, and I am quite prepared to hear any points made.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread disappointment at the Government's failure after four years in office to introduce an access to information Bill as promised in their manifesto four years ago? If the Government are asking us to rely on their stated intention to publish more background information about the decisions reached by Government, will he begin by placing in the Library of the House of Commons the Civil Service assessments of experience in the United States and Sweden in this sphere—which clearly has influenced the Government in evading a constructive decision in this respect?

Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend could not have heard what I said. There are two aspects to openness in Government apart from reform of section 2, which is a necessary precursor. One is the provision of information by the Government—the analysis and the working documents. I said that the amount of information we have on that aspect so far is not sufficient for us to go further. There are also other reasons in terms of legislative time. We need to find ways of analysing that aspect. We had a look at it in the Franks committee.
I am sure that, while there may be general agreement in principle as to the way to go forward, it is no use our believing that the method used in the United States, with the presidential form of government and the way Congress is organised, is necessarily the way, in practice, that we should follow in this country. By all means, when we have the analysis, it would need to be published in some form to aid the discussion of the next steps, if they are to be taken in a legislative fashion. Justice published a document recently with the idea that this should be done in a non-legislative way. Let us look at all this.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that secrecy of deliberation and internal communication is always of the essence of all government and that therefore the attempt to invade it is uniformly self-defeating and results only in government erecting new barriers to defend its necessary privacy?

Mr. Rees: I agree with one aspect of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and that was talked about in the Franks committee. There is always the danger that if one removes restrictions, some will try to find means of achieving, like a self-sealing tank, the retention of the system that is sought to be changed. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the White Paper, he will see that we are saying that the analytical documents on which judgments are made should quite properly be made available to the general public. That is a different matter from the aspect about which the right hon. Gentleman was talking and on which I am in sympathy with him—that if people are to take harsh judgments in the interests of the community, the judgment discussion is something that we should look at very carefully before revealing it to the general public. The analytical documents are a different matter.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: May I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the Labour Party conference, the TUC and all other progressive organisations have come out unreservedly in favour of a freedom of information Act? The Home Secretary said that this has been going on since 1911—Franks and all that. May I take it from his reply that he wants still further time, after four years of broken promises, for even more consideration? If we get back to office at the next election, will he say that we shall make a further promise to which we shall give consideration after another four years? Let him believe me, the public will not be fooled again.

Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman referred to 1911. In my early days in the House, and right through the 1960s, the debates that took place here were about section 2 and its catch-all nature. All the reports, including that from Justice, leading up to the Franks committee, were on that basis. That is the document that I have put to the House. In terms of the next step, my hon. Friend's view is that there should be a statutory right on demand to look at documents. That is a different turn of discussion and the one that we now need to discuss.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Government have already had four years for that.

Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will find that it is a most difficult subject. What was said in the Queen's Speech was that there would be legislative proposals on section 2. That is what is now being honoured.

Mr. Hooson: Does the Home Secretary not owe it to the House and the country to explain why the Government, having taken a period of four years for gestation, have delivered an absolute mouse of a White Paper? Does the Home Secretary not realise the great danger of replacing section 2 with something much more credible and effective without compensatory benefits by way of open government? Is not the truth of the matter that the Government, and particularly the Cabinet committee, have found that their manifesto commitment has been overborne by the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), which is not borne out by the experience of other countries? Would the Government not be much more honest if they said bluntly to the House that they have come to the conclusion that no more open government is possible because, after four years, they have been unable to produce any proposals for more open government?

Mr. Rees: The hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. There are two aspects of open government, and three if we include the point that I took as read, namely that I have no doubt that the reform of section 2 has an overbearing influence in government which is important. There are two other aspects in terms of openness of government. A great deal has been done in the past year in the provision of documents.
The next step forward would not be a mouse. I read the interesting document published by the Liberal Party, but I should clear up one point that is misunderstood outside. No one in any quarter of the House, including the Liberal Party, is suggesting that the nine exceptions in the Public Information Act of the United States, including matters of defence and foreign policy secrets, internal personnel rules and matters expressly excepted by statute, do not represent a core of information in the United States,

as in Sweden, which is almost the same as the exceptions in section 2. Reform of section 2 necessarily comes first. The discussion from that point onwards can then be much more clear and sensible.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I appeal to the House for brief questions and answers because the business for today—the Wales Bill—falls under a timetable motion? I want to call as many hon. Members as possible and I shall be abe to do so if there are brief questions.

Mr. Engish: Is my right hon. Friend not seriously concerned about the fact that it is much more than four years since the Franks committee was set up and that the system of government cannot be very good if it takes that length of time to produce this ridiculous mouse of a White Paper, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) called it? Would my right hon. Friend tell us when he intends to produce proposals on section 1, which is an important section related to matters prejudicial to the safety of the State, but which has recently been used rather more widely than was ever intended?

Mr. Rees: In terms of my hon. Friend's last few words on section 1, it would be better if I made no comment at all. However, in all the discussion of the last 14 or 15 years, there has been no question of reforming section 1—the spying clause. My hon. Friend might think that it is necessary to do that. I have no reason to believe that the question of section 1 is exercising the public, and the exceptions in the United States Act to which I referred reinforce me in that very strong view.

Mr. Mayhew: Do not paragraphs 46 and 47 of the White Paper demonstrate clearly why it would be wasteful, unnecessary and impractical to honour the pledge in the Labour Party's October 1974 manifesto to introduce legislation to put the burden on authorities to justify the withholding of information?

Mr. Rees: This matter ought to be discussed to take into account what was said by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and other views in the House. I do not think that it is impractical in principle, but we need to


think the matter out very carefully. In the sections of the White Paper to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred and the following section, I have attempted to lay the base on which a discussion can take place. There is complete agreement on the fact that there is some information that it would be wrong, on grounds of the security and safety of the State, law and order and so on, for us to reveal. That would be wrong, and no one is arguing that that should be done.

Mr. Heffer: My right hon. Friend referred to the Justice report that has recently been published, but is he aware that he has received a report produced by the Labour Party—it has not yet been published but I hope that it soon will be—that makes it clear that we are in favour of a freedom of information Act, and that such a measure has been drafted and worked out by the machinery of government committee of the national executive? Will he give us a pledge that that report will equally be taken into consideration? It contains the views of the party to which he belongs, and the party is pledged to introduce a freedom of information Act as part of its manifesto commitment and part of its basic philosophy? Contrary to what Opposition Members say—those who claim that we want to bring in an east European Communist State—does he agree that there are no freedom of information Acts in Communist societies and that that differentiates us clearly from the sort of nonsense that we have heard from the Opposition Benches?

Mr. Rees: It is extremely easy—I suppose that we shall get a great deal of it—to make comparisons with Eastern Europe when talking about the party to which my hon. Friend belongs and to which I belong. Since its birth our party has had a proud history of having a form of Socialism rather different from Socialism in non-democratic countries.

Sir Frederic Bennett: They are all the same thing.

Mr. Rees: That is the sort of nonsense to be expected from the hon. Gentleman. The matters that my hon. Friend has raised will be considered in a wider discussion that we need to carry forward. It is important that we do that. It would

be wrong to take decisions without a deep-seated investigation.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman says that criminal sanctions are to be removed from large parts of section 2. Will he also consider whether the new and trendy action of breach of confidentiality—ostensibly a civil action but one that produces much the same results as criminal actions—should be removed? If that is not done, what the Government will be taking with one hand they may be taking with the other as well. The criminal sanction removal may not be enough to secure freedom from the new trendy action of breach of confidentiality.

Mr. Rees: I shall consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The White Paper is about reforming the catchall character of section 2. Of course, I shall consider the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one small mercy for which we have to be thankful is that, contrary to the impression given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last week, the Government are saying that they are keeping an open mind on further legislation to move towards a full official information Act? Will he tell us whether he is also keeping an open mind about the elements of section 1 that impinge on greater freedom of information? Does he agree that journalists who are honestly going about their business according to professional ethics should not be put in jeopardy of prosecution under section 1?

Mr. Rees: In referring to section 1, the spying clause, my hon. Friend has not mentioned a particular case, but I suspect that that is what he means. It would be much better if I said nothing about that. I want to leave section 1 alone. As for the Government being open minded, if my hon. Friend considers what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week he will find that there is no distinction to be drawn. My right hon. Friend was referring to section 2 as the main part of the White Paper.

Mr. Warren: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 75 in my name and in the names of nearly 100 hon.


Members that calls for a freedom of information Act? Will he admit that his failure to introduce such an Act four years after his party's manifesto commitment demonstrates that his party and his Government have been beaten by the Whitehall machine in the Government's dying days?

Mr. Rees: I do not think that that is right. We have not been beaten by the Whitehall machine. There are realities of life that have to be taken into account. The parliamentary timetable is one such reality. I hope that the mandarins of Whitehall are not to be regarded as a reason for a freedom of information Act not being introduced. If there is any fault in that respect, it is mine and mine alone and not that of civil servants.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern about open government is concern about improving the qualities of decision-making in Government and that some of us would disagree with the view of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Many of us think that the quality of government would be raised by improving the Select Committee procedure so that it might share in the decision-making process before decisions are made by the Government. As for confidential information, is it not right that we should be making progress on the right of privacy, on which our newspapers are a good deal less clamorous?

Mr. Rees: I agree that privacy is important. We shall be publishing the Lindop committee report shortly. The Select Committee procedure is a matter not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Lord President. I have learned in my time of office and when associated with decision-taking that when some people write about the way in which decisions are taken some years after the event they do so in a most curiously subjective manner that seems to have little bearing on what I remember of the way in which decisions were in fact taken.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Latham.

Mr. Michael Latham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. Mr. Michael Latham. I do know the difference.

Hon. Members: So do we.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is the right hon. Gentleman's review concerned with the decision whether to release a document that is now more than 30 years old? There is concern that some documents that could now be released have been kept under wraps for reasons not entirely connected with security. In particular, what is happening to the Government's current review of the official history of intelligence of World War II?

Mr. Rees: I should be happy to respond to that question, but it does not come under the heading of the Official Secrets Act. The 30-year rule is a different aspect.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reasons he has given for his failure to implement our manifesto pledge are totally unconvincing? They will not convince anyone in the House or outside. It is said in the White Paper that the Government are in favour of more open government and of producing documents behind policy decisions, and that is the instruction of the Prime Minister. Will my right hon. Friend now take the opportunity of listing the titles of all the documents that he will produce that lie behind the production of the White Paper?

Mr. Rees: I thought that I might be asked the question that my hon. Friend raised at the end of his remarks. We have promised to provide the analytical documents which are available before a decision is taken. The analytical documents on section 2, which is what the White Paper is about, is the Franks report. Beyond that there are matters of judgment.

Mr. Kilroy-Silk: We have waited four years.

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend disbelieves what I say, I must stress that the analytical documents other than the Franks report are practically nil because otherwise judgments are involved. Information for the next step forward is a different matter. I regard these matters as extremely important. When my hon. Friend talks about people outside being worried, I can only express the wish that at the election he finds more than two or


three people in his constituency who are concerned about it.

Mr. Corbett: Shabby.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am keeping my eye on the clock. I want to be fair to those who wish to speak on the Wales Bill. However, I shall call the hon. Members who have been rising to ask questions, if they are brief. If hon. Members are not brief, I shall not be able to call their colleagues. Miss Richardson.

Miss Richardson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the commitment in the Labour Party manifesto was not restricted to section 2 in the reform of the Official Secrets Act? In the manifesto we talked about replacing the Official Secrets Act. I beg my right hon. Friend to believe that in the view of quite a wide section of the public, as well as Labour Members, section 1 requires some consideration. It is no good my right hon. Friend tossing off that suggestion, saying that it is the spying clause and that we shall not discuss it. May I have an undertaking from him that at least he will consider section 1?

Mr. Rees: I have made that clear in terms of the manifesto and the Queen's Speech. With regard to the way in which section I has been put to me, I should rather wait until certain legal proceedings have taken place.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) talked about the essence of government being secrecy, or words to that effect, he was the person who told the House some time ago that the immigration report that had been leaked was a report that we should all hear about? The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) spoke of this statement by the Minister being a mouse. But was he not a member of the same small group of people who together managed to organise what some might term a conspiracy to prevent people from learning everything about insurance cards and shot dogs? This White Paper represents an attempt to explain the unexplainable. Will my right hon. Friend therefore pay more attention to those who have argued that something should be done about section 1?

Mr. Rees: It would be wrong for me to make any comment at the moment on section 1—the spying clause. The story of the last 15 years has been concerned with section 2.
With regard to what my hon. Friend said about immigration—the right hon. Member for Down, South can speak for himself—I shall publish tomorrow the response to the Select Committee's report. The publication of a Select Committee report, which is meant to be public, is rather different from the subject that we are discussing. Judgments on the basis of facts which are put in front of anybody are a different aspect of the matter which we have been discussing today, report, which is meant to be public, is another question. In my view, there is a case for discussing the analytical material.

Mr. Dalyell: In paragraph 27, the question of personal details given to civil servants by social security applicants is mentioned. How are confidences held by a Government Department, however acquired, requiring protection by the criminal law from improper disclosure to be given such protection? Can any action be taken on that matter?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly discuss the practical side of that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are saying that that sort of information should have the protection of the criminal law. Those working in those Departments know that, unlike other areas, if they transgress in this respect, with the penalties which are laid down here, they will be dealt with by the force of the criminal law. I feel very strongly that we should make clear to civil servants concerned—and this is one aspect of it—that information from the population as a whole should be firmly protected.

Mr. Rooker: Is the impression given in paragraph 42 that the Government published the instructions issued by the then head of the home Civil Service a correct interpretation? If so, it is not. Sir Douglas Allen's letter was published only after it had been leaked to the press. Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the functions of those who aspire to and hold political leadership in an alert democracy is to seek to hold up a vision to their fellow citizens and to educate them


on the problems of running a complex society? Is he aware that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Kilroy-Silk) showed that he is fit neither to hold nor to aspire to such leadership?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend may believe that if he likes, but he should have listened carefully to what I said. Ministers have responsibilities, and so do Back-Bench Members.

Mr. Litterick: I share the general disappointment about the contents of this document, but it was gratifying to hear the Home Secretary say that he was mindful of the need to protect information on individual citizens collected by the State. However, it is greatly disappointing that there is nothing in this document that will provide the individual citizen with the means of getting access to the information that the State holds on him. The Home Secretary said nothing, and there is nothing in this document, to give any guarantee to the British people that information on individual citizens held by the State will not be divulged to another State under, for example, Common Market laws. Will the Home Secretary now give us an assurance or reassurance on both those points?

Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend talked about access. We have agreed to differ with regard to the White Paper, which is about section 2.
As regards providing information on individuals to a foreign State, I have no knowledge of that.

Mr. Litterick: We talked about it last week.

Mr. Rees: I shall look at it very carefully. I should be extremely angry if information about me as a citizen were passed to anybody else.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The Home Secretary will appreciate the considerable disappointment on these Benches that he is not going to publish the background papers and that no background papers exist on this document. Will he at least now assure us that the letter by the head of the Civil Service has had some practical effect? Further, will he publish in the Official Report a list of documents which have been released during

the last 12 months which would not have been released but for that letter?

Mr. Rees: Information has been given in Hansard. I think that we are talking about two different points. With regard to section 2, the Franks committee was the basis on which we worked. The provision of the other information to which my hon. Friend refers is a separate matter. I shall look at that and bring it to the notice of the Civil Service Department and the Minister concerned.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Despite what has been said, does my right hon. Friend agree that there was a definite commitment in the Labour Party manifesto to replace the Official Secrets Act, not that we would discuss the possibility and how best to do it? Is there any reason why we in this country should be later than Sweden and the United States in introducing a freedom of information Bill, for example? Ts it because we regard democracy as less important and government as less accountable?

Mr. Rees: If my hon. Friend looks at the White Paper, he will see that there is a section dealing with that principle. My strong view is that section 2 is vital as a precursor. That does not invalidate a further step forward. Our methods and parliamentary system are different from those of the two countries mentioned by my hon. Friend. I do not believe that he is arguing that, if we ever do this, it should he on exactly the same lines as in the United States and Sweden, because that would be wrong.

TEN-MINUTE BILLS

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At a time when we are concerned about secrets, I wonder whether you can cast any light on the phantom Ten-Minute Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) which should have appeared on the Order Paper today but I gather was removed from it last night. That Bill was originally associated with employment protection, but it underwent a curious sea change and emerged as a Bill to promote electoral reform in Northern Ireland.
I do not want to speculate on the political motives or other reasons of the hon. Member for Eastbourne, who is


an enthusiastic Ten-Minute Ruler, if that is the correct term, in withdrawing the Bill. However, I am concerned about the opportunity that has been lost to another Member to promote a Bill as a result of the hon. Member for Eastbourne withdrawing his Bill. Therefore, I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, would refer the arrangements for withdrawing notice of a Bill to the Procedure Committee so that longer advance notice of a withdrawn Bill may be given, thereby enabling other Members to take advantage of time that is otherwise lost.

Mr. Rooker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I support what my hon. Friend submitted to you. It is important that hon. Members are not deprived of valuable parliamentary time, which belongs solely to Back Benchers, to promote particular causes. I know that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Cow) was keen, because he turned up at the Public Bill Office at 6 o'clock in the morning and found that I had already been there for nine hours. I also know that, like me, my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) would have liked the opportunity to introduce a Ten-Minute Bill on the price-fixing arrangements in British industry. He mentioned to me that he would have liked to do what I did yesterday. He could have done it today had he had warning yesterday of what was intended by the hon. Member for Eastbourne. My hon. Friend has been deprived of this legitimate parliamentary procedure that is open only to Back Benchers.

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall certainly call the hon. Gentleman. However, I point out that valuable time on the timetable motion is being consumed.

Mr. Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you enlighten us about the techniques for withdrawing Private Members' Bills? Is it possible for a political party to exert pressure on an hon. Member to withdraw a Bill at the last minute? How does this situation come about?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for an hon. Member not to move a Bill of which he has given notice he might seek the opportunity to introduce. What the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has done is not out of order.

BILL PRESENTED

LICENSING (SPECIAL HOURS CERTIFICATES)

Mr. Neville Trotter presented a Bill to amend the Licensing Act 1964 in relation to the grant of special hours certificates: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Thursday 12th October and to be printed [Bill 175].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 3 shall apply to the Motion relating to the draft Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 with the substitution of half-past Twelve o'clock or two and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later, for the provisions in paragraph 1(b) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.]

Orders of the Day — WALES BILL

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

THE WELSH ASSEMBLY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
("the members of which shall be elected by that system of proportional voting specified under this Act.")

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments nos. 2 to 10, 14 to 17 and 88 to 91.

Mr. Smith: This amendment and those associated with it provide for elections to the Welsh Assembly to be on the additional Member system of proportional representation instead of on the first-past-the-post system which was provided for in the Bill when it left the Commons.
During the devolution legislation we have had a number of debates about the principle and method of proportional representation. The House will be familiar with the arguments. The proposition by the Lords is on the same lines as was favoured by them for the Scottish Assembly. The House of Commons has already reached a decision in Committee and when we discussed Lords amendments to the Scotland Bill.
The system proposed provides for a Welsh Assembly of 75 Members, comprising 50 constituency Members elected by the first-past-the-post system and 25 additional Members to be elected on party votes by the method described in Part IV of Schedule 1.
There is little to say beyond that which was said when we debated the similar issue in relation to the Scotland Bill a few days ago. The House of Lords wished to write into the Bill, as into the Scotland Bill, the additional Member system. In

previous debates hon. Members concentrated on the general criticism of proportional representation. Others discussed criticism of the additional Member system and the influence that it might give to the party machine. The House reached a clear decision on the Scotland Bill. I doubt that the House will wish to come to a different conclusion for Wales.
The proposal for Wales is for executive rather than legislative devolution, but I do not believe that that constitutes an argument or reason for introducing a different method of election. By a large majority we recently confirmed that we should have the first-past-the-post system for the Scottish Assembly. The Government submit that the same method of election is appropriate for the Welsh Assembly.
We do not seek to impose that view on our supporters. There is a completely free vote on this matter for my right hon. and hon. Friends. The most useful thing that I can do is to allow the debate to proceed.

Mr. Francis Pym: We have had several debates about the method of election. But it is a useful exercise to debate what lies behind the amendment and the ideas that it contains. There is a lot to be said for electing the Welsh Assembly on a different principle.
I shall make a few critical comments about the system that is proposed, but there is some advantage in the House addressing itself to the arguments which underline the amendment. Although we are creating a type of Cabinet and Executive in Wales, we are not creating a Government in the sense in which we use that term in this House. The decisions which the Assembly will take will be different and the responsibility which it will carry will be different.
Some of the arguments advanced in favour of the first-past-the-post system do not apply to the Assembly. The most important of those arguments is that we want a system—and the first-past-the-post provides that system—which in an election produces a clear and decisive result in parliamentary terms. A small swing in votes can make a considerable difference in the number of seats gained by a particular party. Recently that has not been so in some General Elections, but on the whole the system has produced


a clear and decisive parliamentary result even when the analysis of the voting figures might not suggest that the outcome is correct.
The theory is that first-past-the-post produces strong Government. However, in the context of a Welsh Assembly we are not contemplating a strong Government We are contemplating an Executive that acts fairly and sensitively in the devolved areas in Wales. From that view it seems that an electoral system different from first-past-the-post could be an advantage

Mr. Donald Anderson: Would not the right hon. Member's argument apply equally to local government? Is he suggesting a form of PR for local government elections?

Mr. Pym: I do not support PR for local government because the electorate is smaller and the personalities are better known to many people. In theory it might be possible to argue in favour of PR for local government, but the scale of the elections is on a different and smaller plane. We are not debating that matter this afternoon.
Another argument relates to the party structure which in Wales is different from that in the United Kingdom. It is also different from that in Scotland where there are three principal parties which are more or less equal.
In Wales the Labour Party has been, and is, predominant. On the basis of all recent election results in the Principality the probability is that a Labour majority will exist in the Assembly. It would be a predominantly South Wales Labour majority, which causes many of the anxieties that have been expressed by people in Mid-Wales and, even more so, in North Wales.
The attraction of such a majority might appeal to the Labour Party, but one has to ask how the Labour Party sees that majority being used in the Assembly. If it is to be used to try to impose upon Wales the doctrines of socialism, the future for Wales is bleak. The Labour Party might have no such intention. But there is evidence to suggest that that is what the party would like to do. The Secretary of State for Wales has said as much in the House.
Whatever designs the Welsh nationalists or the Labour Party have for Wales, it can be argued that the character and work of an Assembly should enable the views and preferences of all sections of the Welsh people to be properly and fully considered. I should like to envisage the Assembly taking full account of the views of monirities and being sympathetic to the differences. For long we have had a tolerant society in the United Kingdom. We hope that the same tolerance will be exercised once the Assembly is set up.
The theory is that proportional representation will achieve that objective more effectively than the first-past-the-post system. On the basis of modern exidence on the voting pattern in Wales, the Labour Party is likely to win a majority, whether or not proportional representation is introduced. But the minorities in Wales might feel more secure if PR were introduced. It might give some reassurance to those in North Wales who are so anxious.
Another argument is rather negative. It concerns the extent to which proportional representation might imply an inexorable move towards proportional representation for elections to the Commons, which this House demonstrably does not want. I do not subscribe to that fear. Proportional representation for the Assembly could entrench more deeply the first-past-the-post system for the Commons.
No one knows for sure, but I see no good reason why every directly elected assembly—the House of Commons, a regional assembly, a local council and the European Assembly—should be elected on the same basis. To say the least, that seems inflexible and unimaginative. Indeed, I think that there would be positive advantage in electing an Assembly such as this one for Wales on a defferent basis.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the people of Wales are of advanced intelligence. They demonstrate that by voting so overwhelmingly for the Labour Party. But if we had an Assembly in Wales there would be five or six levels of government, which would give them perpetual elections—much like the remainder of the country. Further to complicate matters, there would conceivably


be two or three different systems of election. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there might be just the merest weariness with the constant repetition of democracy and the complexities? Would not the problems be even greater under the scheme that he proposes?

Mr. Pym: When I had the pleasure of being a candidate in the Rhondda Valley, the people of that valley were always extremely encouraging. They told me not to worry, that if the sheep had "Labour" stamped on their sides, they would still be elected.
I take the point about complication of systems, but I think that two would be better than one. With all these elections, there is an argument for a different system for the Welsh Assembly—I should like the same system for the European Assembly—providing that we can come to an acceptable conclusion about the method. That is the point with which I am about to deal.
For the reasons that I have given, I am much in sympathy with the thinking behind the amendment, but we get into trouble over the method. The PR enthusiasts are inclined to brush aside the problems presented by the various methods. In their campaign, they tend to neglect the difficulties and the consequences. They are entitled to take advantage of these Bills to further the cause of PR, but until all the arguments surrounding the different methods have been carried further and discussed much more widely, the pro-PR lobby will land in a cul-de-sac.
This additional Member system, while very neat on paper and fine in theory, is all right only if one turns a blind eye to its disadvantages. The House will not do that. I know that the Hansard Society came out strongly in its favour, but there has been little debate of that report so far.
I suppose that it is just possible that the AMS may eventually be found superior to the alternative vote system or to STV or any of the other options—although I doubt it—but it remains to be seen. I cannot support it today because I dislike the added emphasis on party, the extended bias towards the party label and the concept of two classes of Assemblymen—those who have constituents and those who have not.
I should be very surprised if, even in the unlikely event of this House favouring PR at all, it chose this system, for precisely that reason. At any rate, much more debate is needed. To the extent that this debate contributes to that process, I welcome it, but I doubt that the House will feel able to accept the amendment.
The Minister of State said that the Government are to have a free vote, and so are we. I think that we know how the House will decide, but there is advantage in airing the arguments about this possible change in the electoral system. Although I should be content to see some different system, there is not one yet invented which has broad enough support to make that practicable. Each of us must therefore make up his mind whether this would be an improvement for the Assembly.
The House is likely to turn this proposal down again tonight, but however short, this debate will not be without value for future consideration of this subject.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) always seems to want things both ways. He wants to make sympathetic noises about PR without ever committing himself to supporting it. The important matter is the principle of proportionality introduced by the Lords amendments. I was much more impressed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend, Lord Harlech, in the debate on this subject, when he moved this amendment, and particularly by the thoughtful speech of Lord Hail-sham in the debate on the Scotland Bill.
The matter at issue is the principle of proportionality as a method of election. It has certain tangible benefits. First, public opinion in Wales is extremely divided about this matter. It would be more acceptable to many more people if the election were by means of PR. I know from members of my party, members of the Labour Party and members of the Conservative Party that many of them would be much more likely to support devolution in the referendum if the method of election were PR.
The reasons are obvious. For many years, Wales has been dominated by one


party. One of the most effective arguments against the Welsh Assembly—not the one most trotted out, but one which I reject because in time I think that it will be changed—is that it will be dominated by the Labour Party and that it will behave in the way which was said to be characteristic of the old Glamorganshire County Council, where everything was decided in a caucus before the meeting. Whether that criticism is right or wrong I do not know, but if the Labour Party is intent on winning the referendum, it will behove it to consider carefully introducing a method of PR.
That would be crucial to the decision of people not only in my party but in many others, including the Labour Party, whether to support devolution. In the last election, the Labour Party received 49.5 per cent. of the votes in Wales for this House and received 23 seats; the Conservative Party got 23·9 per cent. and 8 seats; my party got 15·5 per cent. and 2 seats; Plaid Cymru received 10·7 per cent. and 3 seats. Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Party support the principle of PR, because we realise that the result could be different next time—but two minority parties between them with over 25 per cent. of the vote have only 5 Members to represent them here.
That is manifestly absurd and unjust and the people of Wales realise it. If the process is repeated in an Assembly election, it could be totally dominated by the Labour Party on a minority vote. In the Province of Quebec, where the first-past-the-post system also operates, the Nationalist Party got 41 per cent. of the popular vote and 70 per cent. of the seats. That is absurd.

Mr. Pym: The hon. and learned Member says that we are considering PR and the principle behind it, but with respect we are not. We are considering a particular amendment. He should address his mind to that amendment and to the added Member system and the problems that it creates. His arguments are perfectly valid and relevant to the general principle of PR, but we are considering a particular electoral system for a particular Assembly.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I cannot compress my thoughts in an all-embracing

fashion into two minutes and I intend to develop my argument about this amendment and a particular system in a moment. My own preference is for STV, but I should prefer any sensible system of PR to the first-past-the-post method.
The second tangible benefit is that an Assembly election by a reasonable system of PR would more accurately reflect the views of the Welsh people. Lord Harlech's proposal was based upon the report by Lord Blake for the Hansard Society. The matter has been very carefully considered. The conclusion was that this was probably the most acceptable system for most people. That accepts that the Liberals prefer STV, others the alternative vote system, and others the topping-up system. The Blake commission, as it was described, came out in favour of this system as the one most likely to attract overall support. On that basis I am prepared to support it.
4.30 p.m.
If implemented it would mean that every party securing over 5 per cent. of the vote in Wales would benefit from a topping-up operation which would result in a much fairer balance and a much fairer reflection of Welsh opinions in an Assembly. This matter, therefore, is vitally important to people who believe in democracy. If people believe in democracy how can they logically object to such a system?

Mr. Peter Thomas: The hon. and learned Gentleman's first objection was that there is a fear in Wales that the Assembly would always have a built-in Labour majority. Has he worked out under this system, which is the additional Member system, what the likely result would be? Would there not still be an overall and almost permanent majority for the Labour Party?

Mr. Hooson: No, I do not think so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will note that Lord Harlech suggested how the topping-up operation should take place. I do not pretend to follow the mathematics of it, but I understand that it would result in a much broader picture and would go far from presenting the Labour Party with a permanent majority. The Labour vote has been steadily declining in Wales. Not too long ago it was well over 50 per cent.
The third tangible benefit of accepting this proposal would be that the Government would appear to be giving way to reason and persuasion. It is highly significant to the younger generation that Conservative and Labour Governments found it necessary to introduce proportional representation for Assembly elections in Northern Ireland. Were they acknowledging the superiority of the gun and the bomb to persuasive arguments? Why did the Labour Government feel it necessary to have PR to provide adequate representation for minorities in Northern Ireland—the Tories did the same—and yet are refusing such provisions for Wales and Scotland? I should like to hear a Minister justify in reason and in logic why it was necessary to introduce PR to safeguard minorities in Northern Ireland when they do not regard it as necessary to do so in Wales and Scotland.
In addition to those tangible benefits, one has to bear in mind that the Kilbrandon Commission, which consisted of highly distinguished and able people of different and, in some cases, unknown political views, reached one unanimous conclusion which was that the Assembly should be elected by means of PR.
As Lord Harlech explained in another place, a child of nine could follow the system quite quickly. It is astonishing that even countries that are emerging from dictatorship, such as Portugal and Spain, have adopted PR for election to their Assemblies. The people there found no difficulty in understanding it.
In this country, however, the argument is trotted out that the British people would have difficulty in understanding PR. That argument should be treated with the utmost contempt. It is nonsense. In a single-Member constituency voters would select the candidate of their choice—that is, by direct election—and choose the party of their choice for the topping-up operation. In a two-Member constituency the voter would express his preference with two crosses plus a preference for the party. The only reason for rejecting these proposals is one of political self-interest and chicanery. There are no reasons in logic for not accepting them.
Today I lunched with an old friend of mine who is the chairman of a large international company which operates in

all the western democracies and many other countries. He did not know of this afternoon's debate, but he opined to me that the greatest single benefit that could accrue to this country—not just to Wales—would be the adoption of a system of PR. I am not limiting my arguments to those which can be advanced for Wales, but which do not apply to the country as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire advanced an interesting argument that the first-past-the-post system provided strong government here at Westminster and said that we were not concerned with that factor for the Welsh Assembly. I say to him with the greatest respect that, looking at the history of our country over the past 20 or 30 years, one could not argue that first-past-the-post had given us strong or consistent Governments, especially when contrasted with countries such as West Germany which, without any party having an overall majority, has had strong and consistent Governments. Perhaps the attitude of the German Government in resisting inflation is a lesson to us all in at least a consistency of approach. It is a system of voting that gives people the Government and the Assembly that they want, not the one they do not want. I am much in favour of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I support the Lords amendments and I am grateful to the Government for arranging a free vote on the matter. I assume that the Conservatives will also have a free vote. I trust that the numbers voting for PR will continue to increase as they have increased in the course of our debates on this topic in recent weeks.
I was greatly disappointed that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) seemed to be blowing hot and cold on this issue. I was surprised at one or two of his remarks. He said that he did not like the emphasis on party. That is an interesting statement because it seems to me that party plays a fundamental and important role in the whole basis of democracy. It is important to be careful about the way in which one views the emphasis on party. It is bad to have no emphasis, but it would be equally bad if there were too much. I assume that the right hon. Member was trying to strike some kind of happy


medium. Too great an emphasis was legitimately criticised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who pointed out the dangers arising in Wales from having one party dominating affairs to the possible disadvantage of the overall democratic responsibility and efficiency of the Assembly.
It is true that the Glamorgan county council, as it was, was a competent and efficient authority, but it was dominated largely by one party. Equally, however, I am sure that the Denbigh county council was competent, responsible and democratic, but it had very little party content in a formal sense. It was made up largely of independent members. Matters would have been considerably improved for both counties if there had been a genuine party element with a fairly strong opposition party.
I remember my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) when he was Prime Minister in the 1964–70 period bemoaning the fact that the Government Benches were having to provide both the Government and the Opposition. His point was to criticise the weakness of the Opposition at that time. It is extremely important for democracy to provide a proper balance in the party system. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire appeared, at least on the face of it, to be decrying the extent to which PR might introduce such a balance to a greater degree in local government and in the Assembly.
I am glad to support PR because I believe that it has a great deal of public support. The polls on this issue speak emphatically. At some date in the not-too-distant future—because pressures will come for PR now that we have got into this "referendums" situation, which rather makes fun of the whole concept of the sovereignty of Parliament, about which I shall speak briefly in a moment —now that we have got used to the business of referendums, we should have a referendum on this issue, not just for the Assembly but, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, in the wider context.
I have tried to be intellectually honest with myself. I must say that I disagree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, who seemed to say that if we succeeded in introducing PR for the

Assembly it would not have some kind of repercussion or further effect on this House. I think that it would. I am being quite honest. It may well be that I shall frighten some hon. Members by saying it, but I think that it is right for me to say exactly what I believe, being honest with myself and the House. I think that PR would be a very good thing for this House, for a number of reasons.
I make this point in passing. Although it is not strictly to do with the Assembly, it is very important for us to bear in mind from the point of view of the sovereignty of this House. The business of the sovereignty of this House has become almost a theological debate in recent years, what with Europe on the one hand and the Assemblies on the other. Personally, I do not go along with the view that seems to be held by many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members, which is that the proper place for sovereignty to reside in this country is here in this House. I do not go along with that, for a number of reasons.
I accept at once that it is far better for sovereignty to reside here rather than with some kind of absolute monarch of 500 years ago. At least we have developed to that extent. But I like to think that today, in a world which has an incipient mass democracy, with all the problems of mass democracy, the place where sovereignty resides is the people, and that the people will be prepared to lend sovereignty to the political institution most appropriate for handling it.
We see all kinds of developments, not only within our own borders but outside, demonstrating the fact that in many respects this House is not the most appropriate political institution for being the sole repository of sovereignty. Amongst many other things that have become apparent, sovereignty is not a monolithic concept which resides precisely in one place; sovereignty now can be split.
This very House has willed away sovereignty in some respects, according to the Treaty of Rome. It has willed it away, incidentally, in a rather undemocratic way, to the Court, the Commission and the Council. We have a job on our hands to try to democratise that aspect. I suspect that in respect of other facets of sovereignty, in clue course it will


be found more appropriate for those facets to reside in the Welsh Assembly.
Therefore, in this regard, if the will of the people is expressed in such a way as to require some sort of PR in the various Assemblies that exist, whether here, in Cardiff, or, indeed, in Luxembourg or wherever, if sovereignty really now, in a modern age, resides with the people, that will should begin to be expressed. I am speaking now as a democrat and as a Socialist.
That is one argument. By introducing PR into the Welsh Assembly, I am fairly sure that in due course it will extend its way into this place, and to very good effect for this country.
There are a number of other reasons why I support PR. I must take issue with the right hon. Gentleman, who seemed to criticise the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for talking about PR in broad principle rather than talking specifically about the system proposed. I would be prepared to accept any one of two or three systems. Some are better than others, but I would be prepared to accept them. In my mind, the system proposed does not rate as being as supremely important an issue as the overall issue. It is being a little disingenuous and a little specious to argue that the issue concerns the type of system rather than the principle of PR. What is really at stake—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must know it—is the whole principle of PR.
4.45 p.m.
There are many reasons why PR should begin to play its part in this country. One of the biggest problems facing politicians in the world today is getting people to accept change. That is perhaps the biggest single job that politicians have. It is, for example, to ask people to leave a declining steelworks and work somewhere else. In a democracy the complications of persuading people to accept change are enormous, and demand inspired political leadership. When the political leaders appear to people to be frozen into some kind of ideological posture appropriate to 60, 70 or 80 years ago, one can hardly blame people for refusing to accept change. They see the politicians frozen in this immobility. I think that PR would be a very useful

means of getting some kinds of change accepted.
The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the advantages for PR in this House and the Assemblies was that it produced a clear and decisive result. I am not sure about that. I think that the results in meaningful political terms are anything but clear and decisive. What we in Britain have witnessed over the last 35 years is anything but a continuation of policy. We have had the ups and downs, the yo-yos, and people on one side shouting "Yah" and people on the other side shouting "Boo". This is the adversarial system, in which "we" are saints with haloes over our heads and "they" are devils with horns growing out of their heads.
The people of this country, in an extraordinary way, are tending to lead the politicians, rather than the politicians leading the people. The people know that in many respects this place does anything but represent the modern problems facing the society in which we live.

Mr. Hooson: By a slip of the tongue, the hon. Member kept referring to the PR system producing this result, when he surely meant the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Ellis: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. I meant the first-past-the-post system. I am supporting PR.
These seem to me, anyway, to be very important reasons why we should get PR to be really accepted by the politicians. I rate it as one of the major practical steps that could be taken in the fairly near future, starting seriously to grapple with the complete failure of the political structure of this country as it has existed since the war.

Mr. Pym: To put the record straight, I said that recent elections had not produced the kind of strong government that had been the characteristic result of the first-past-the-post system for a very long time, but it does not alter the fact that for many years that was the result of it, although I agree that recently it has not had quite the effect that it used to have.

Mr. Ellis: The point that I was making—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will take it—was that in a modern complex industrial society, the


time span whereby policies of many kinds, whether economic, defence or foreign affairs, extend over such a period that a Government that might be changed in five, eight or even 10 years, to be replaced by another Government who thought that the original Government were nothing but devils, is anything but strong, decisive government in the long-term development of the political and economic wellbeing of this country.
I make one final point to emphasise the depths to which we need to go in our discussion on this matter. It is not really a question whether we are to have a party list system or the STV system. The matter goes much deeper. I believe that in many senses what the Labour Party has been preaching in Britain for the whole of this century is no more than a perversion of capitalism. We save our consciences by talking about distribution. The other side talks about production. But they are one and the same thing.
The real Socialist issues have been clouded by this kind of ideological posturing, frozen into rigid postures, based on theories of 60 or 70 years ago. The theory in my party at present is based essentially on what Cole, Tawney and the Webbs said 60 years ago. The theory has degenerated through lack of development into no more than mere sloganising.
I believe that by introducing PR in the Welsh Assembly, in the first instance, and then in due course, I hope, spreading it forward into this place and other places, we may begin seriously to grapple in an objective rather than an emotive sloganising way with some of the real problems facing us.
I beg the House to support the motion, the Lords' point of view, and to reject the Government's view on this issue. It is the biggest and most important single thing that could be done to start us on the road to a real political and economic recovery—more so than any other thing I can think of.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: By leave of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), I would like to return to one very remarkable assertion made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He asserted that a system of proportional representation gave more effective representation to minorities—gave them a more effective

voice, I think he said—than the system of simple majority. That is a proposition which should be carefully and cautiously considered, particularly, if I may say so, by the Conservative Party, before it is too readily accepted.
I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman was very anxious that we should not apply whatever was proposed for the Welsh Assembly to other representative bodies such as, for example, this House. At any rate, he shared the general phobia or instinct of Members of this House that, while they would like to experiment in other assemblies with proportional representation, they cling to the system of simple majority here. But, of course, if the principle that the right hon. Gentleman enunciated is valid—if it is true that minorities ought to have as effective a voice as possible, and that proportional representation gives them a more effective voice—there is no barrier to prevent the extension of proportional representation to this House.
How could we stand up and justify a system which we would be obliged, upon our own reasoning, to admit was not fair to minorities? After all, to be fair to minorities has been our proudest claim in this House. Once admit that proportional representation gives a more effective voice to minorities, and it will not be long before the force of that logic will compel us to concede the desirability of introducing proportional representation for this House.
However, I suggest that the proposition itself is mistaken. At least, it needs much more careful examination.
If a minority is geographically located, the results of simple majority election and proportional representation are, and must be, exactly the same. The only qualification is if the constituencies are so huge that they swamp the geographical majorities. However, if the constituencies are of any normal size, then, provided the minorities are locally concentrated, the system of proportional representation gives them no advantage whatever.
The example which illustrates that perfectly clearly is Northern Ireland. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was quite fascinated by the fact that this House has twice imposed a system of PR upon Northern Ireland, and he asked why we had done it. I


will answer that question in a moment. Let us first see what the consequences have been.
The minority for which people were concerned—the religious or anti-Unionist minority—is so geographically situated, so relatively concentrated locally, that the result, almost mathematically exactly, is the same under PR as it is under simple majority. I may add that if there is any imperfection—and I do not want to stray into a subject not being raised today—the more the number of seats for Northern Ireland in this House, the less that imperfection will be. So PR in Northern Ireland had no effect whatever in increasing the representation of the minority: the minority got exactly the same representation either way.

Mr. Hooson: rose—

Mr. Powell: I will satisfy the hon. and learned Gentleman's curiosity. He can keep his seat for a moment. I shall explain to him what PR does do, and then I shall answer his question.
What PR does not do is to give larger relative representation to the minority than it obtains under simple majority. What it does do, since candidates are elected by transferable vote from a long menu of candidates, is to break up the respective political parties. In that respect, it does alter representation: it results in the minority and the majority being represented by those who wear the livery not of one party but of several because there is always a chance, however minor, however novel, a political party may be, that there will with any luck be sufficient second, third, fourth or fifth preferences to get one or two of them elected somewhere. So the sanction imposed upon the fissiparous tendencies of politicians and parties by the simple majority system is removed by PR—certainly it is by PR by transferable vote.
The former Leader of the Liberal Party understood this very well. I was fascinated, in our earlier debate on this subject in the context of the European Assembly, when the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), who knew perfectly well that PR in Northern Ireland had not given the minority more representation but that it had broken up the party structure, asserted that that was actually the purpose for which it was

instituted—it was done, he said, to break up the monolithic Unionist Party.
I will now satisfy the curiosity of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Why did we introduce it in Northern Ireland? It was because we had not thought it out. We thought that circumstances in Northern Ireland were such that it would produce an effect which geographically it was impossible for it to produce. It was a simple mistake, a misapprehension and the proof of that is that we repeated it 50 years later when we woke up, rubbed our eyes and had to look at Northern Ireland for the second time.
The real effect was to render the party system irresponsible; for the more one breaks up the representation of one political point of view, the more irresponsible one renders those who represent different aspects and different sections of it. I do not think that effect a very warm recommendation for the system of proportional representation.

Mr. Hooson: Surely the system proposed by Lord Harlech in another place —whereby it is required before any party could benefit from the topping-up system that it must have already taken 5 per cent. of the popular vote—removes that criticism and brings it nearer to the German system where we have not seen the break-up of the parties into smaller units.

Mr. Powell: Of course, as compared with the systems of transferable vote, the slate system, the party list system, gives a vested power—which, like many other Members, I do not happen to like—to an existing party system. It rigidifies the party system.
But we can now depart from the case of Northern Ireland, which for this purpose has been valuable because it serves to remind the House that, where minorities are geographically located, PR has no different effect from their point of view. Where it makes a difference is where minorities are diffused; and the more widely and subtly they are diffused, the greater will be the difference between the result under PR and an election under simple majority.
However, we have to distinguish between two meanings of "minority", and here I come back again to my note of warning to the right hon. Member for


Cambridgeshire. There can be a minority which is a minority opinion; and there can also be a minority which is a minority not by virtue of characteristics that it can change, as we can change our opinions, but of more fundamental characteristics. We are moving towards an England in which those minorities do exist and will increasingly exist; and they will not all be geographically concentrated. Though many of them will be, to some extent they will be dispersed. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider well on that ground, too, that the argument for an alteration of the electoral system for this House may well be urged upon him before he is much older if he clings to the principle—which he enunciated, and which I dispute—that the system of proportional representation gives more effective representation to minorities.
Finally, let us look at the political type of minority—

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom Ellis: I did not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman, although I listened carefully. Will he clarify exactly what he is saying? Is he saying that where a minority is diffused, it is desirable or undesirable that the representation of that minority should be increased or decreased?

Mr. Powell: I said that the more it is diffused, the more favourable will be its representation under a system of proportional representation as compared with the simple majority system. In so far as fixed minorities are concerned, and in so far as they may in the future be relatively diffused in this country, the argument would come home to roost with those who assert the principle of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire: They would find they could not resist the application of proportional representation to election to this House.
Finally, I come to the case of the minority which consists in a minority opinion and which is widely diffused. It might, for example, be one of the many minority opinions which from time to time get expressed by voting Liberal—for one can hardly say that there is one consistent, articulated, recognisable body of opinion which all of us know as Liberal, and which we can be sure to find enunciated by every hon. Member

elected to this House on the Liberal ticket.

Mr. Hooson: It is a much clearer opinion than that expressed by the Conservative Party.

Mr. Powell: So here we are really talking about minority political opinions, and I would dispute that minorities in that sense are better represented and more effectively represented by proportional representation. It is true that when an election has taken place by simple majority, we find the elected parties in this House ranged against one another with, in all probability, a party majority of one colour or another. But we must look beneath the surface and look to see what happens in the individual constituencies. We must look to see what are the influences that are being brought to bear upon the respective parties.
In every constituency the political parties, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, are anxious if they can, and as far as they can, to accommodate some consideration of points of view which, if they were in the form of parties, would be separate political parties. It is indeed true that our political parties are coalitions. A good deal of the tolerance of this House is due to the fact that both the great parties on either side of the House are coalitions. It is through their coalition character that they take account, and cannot fail to take account, and would be destroyed if they failed to take account, of the diffused minority opinions in the country.
So it is unsubtle—indeed, it is an incomprehension of what this House is about—to suppose that minority political opinion does not secure a voice in this House because this House is elected on simple majority. The fact is that, because it is elected on simple majority, the major parties have to represent a much wider spread of opinion than they would if there were proportional representation.
If there were proportional representation, we should see what we see among the dissenters: we should see that those who did not accept the whole of the Westminster Confession, or whatever it might be, would say "Very well, we will form a separate party and try our luck at the polls." Each shade of political opinion would then either have to be


regimented or it would have to find its own party form. Today, thanks to the system of simple majority, whichever party occupies the Government Front Bench, we have a Government which is supported by a wide coalition, a coalition always trying to widen its bounds in order to maintain itself in office, and we have a Parliament more sensitive than any other Parliament would be to the various and changing shades of opinion among the electorate which it represents.
So I hope that we shall not commit ourselves to the proposition that minorities depend for expression in this House, or in any democratic assembly, upon a system of proportional representation.

Sir Raymond Gower: I feel that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has a valid point in explaining his theory of how the two major parties tend to become coalitions and thereby to present a wider range of opinion. Nevertheless, it has become obvious in recent years that the first-past-the-post system results in something worse than what has been described as rough justice. There have been a number of occasions on which a minority of the votes has ensured a victory for a party. This was the case in 1951, when there was a larger number of votes cast for Labour candidates and a Conservative Government resulted. It was the case in the election of February 1974, when the Conservative votes considerably exceeded the Labour votes, yet a Labour Government resulted.
I think that there is something wrong with such a system. Nevertheless, like many others of my colleagues, I have been attached to the idea of the association of a Member with his constituency and I would hesitate at Westminster to do away with that hastily. But here we have an admirable opportunity, in the formation of a Welsh Assembly, to experiment somewhat differently, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that there is no reason at all why we should slavishly adopt the same system in the Assembly as that which obtains at Westminster. Surely there is a strong case for experimenting with one or another of the proportional systems.
I speak as one who until quite recently has preferred the old system of first past the post, but increasingly I have become uneasy about it, and I think that many other people are becoming uneasy about it. It is significant that perhaps a decade ago we would have been unable to get 50 votes here in favour of a proportional system, whereas in the last few months the votes of those who favour a proportional system have steadily increased. I think that that is very significant.
The system advocated in the amendments from another place may not be the most perfect system, but in some ways it has very useful qualities which I think we should use as the basis for an experiment. First, we preserve in this experiment the identity in many cases of a Member with his constituency, because the larger number of the representatives will still be from the existing constituencies. It is only in the balance of the voting—the topping-up process—that this identity will be lost. I accept the criticism that this seems unfair in that it creates two kinds of Members, but I do not regard that as a fatal barrier. I think it is much more important to have an Assembly which will represent the majority opinion of the Principality of Wales at the time of a general election to the Assembly.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the case of a Welsh Assembly, which, frankly, will have very little to do, what will the topped-up Members find to occupy themselves with?

Sir R. Gower: That is not the issue on this series of amendments. I have shared and supported some of the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman on that kind of matter, but at present we must confine ourselves to the question we must answer in deciding whether to agree to the amendments.
The position in Wales has been complicated by the political situation. There has been a long period of Labour Party domination, purely because of the domination of Welsh industry by a few very heavy industries which have employed large numbers of people. I do not think that there is any basic difference between people in Wales, people in Scotland or people in England in political matters. I am sure that the Labour Party's domination in Wales is because, more than


in any other part of the United Kingdom, there have been whole areas where the vast majority of people have been employed in coal mining or iron and steel. These have been closely-knit communities, where the vast majority of the male population have been involved, either directly or indirectly. They have been members of a very few trade unions within those communities.
But the Principality is changing. Those basic industries are in decline, or are changing. In the post-war period many new industries of an entirely different nature have arrived. The male and female population of Wales is now employed over a much wider range. I am sure that the result will be that in the longer term the political situation will begin more to resemble that which obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom.
However, it would be a bad thing if the Assembly, under present conditions, should begin under the first-past-the-post system. In the circumstances which I have described, there would continue to be undue domination by the Labour Party, certainly in the initial period. It would create an extravagant majority which would not be warranted by the votes cast for Labour candidates. This would antagonise people who felt that the result was a foregone conclusion. They might ask "What use is this Assembly to us if there is this sort of built-in permanent majority and we may have to wait a very long time before there can be a change?"
If we have a proportional representation system—albeit one sent to us from another place—there is a greater prospect of the Assembly's representing, roughly, the votes cast tot the different parties in all parts of the Principality The result must he a better chance For that permanent domination to be broken, because there will be a change of Government from time to time. That is the essence of the matter.
Permanent domination of any Assembly in any country or in any community is objectionable and bad, though sometimes it cannot be avoided. Perhaps the problem in Northern Ireland was that there was permanent domination by the majority community. Perhaps that is why the proportional system was introduced there.
I would argue with some of the points made by my right hon. Friend. The proportional system was not expressed solely by one or two parties. Other parties, such as the Alliance Party, succeeded in getting Membcrs elected under that system. This meant that the all-too-short-lived. Government was more representative of the community as a whole in that sense than any Government since the time when Stormont was set up. So, even there, there was a great advantage.
Certainly I believe that if we have the system in Wales the Assembly will not be utterly dominated by one party It will be representative of all existing parties. There is the proviso that a party cannot have extra seats unless a proportion of 6 per cent. of the votes polled is attained. That will be a safeguard against the emergence of small splinter groups such as my right hon. Friend mentioned.
5.15 p.m.
All in all, we should be very foolish if we neglected this opportunity of introducing into the whole of the United Kingdom constitutional machinery something which is different from that which we have always had at Westminster.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Would the hon. Member be in favour of holding a referendum, so that the people of Great Britain could decide for themselves whether they were in favour of changing the electoral system?

Sir R. Cower: That, again, has nothing to do with the amendment. I should be very foolish to extend my argument as far as that at this stage. I believe that we should have to try the system first in an Assembly of this kind and assess its comparative worth alongside the first-past-the-post system which we still have at Westminster, and perhaps a different system again—who knows?—in the European elections.
We should be foolish if we neglected this opportunity to enrich our constitutional machinery in these islands. I sincerely hope, therefore, although I have not been a long-term supporter of this kind of provision, that more votes will be cast tonight for the amendments introducing this proportional system than ever before.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I should like to make a brief contribution to the debate because, as one who failed to participate in the discussion on the timetable motion yesterday, I support the views expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on the timetable for dealing with Lords amendments. If I had been able to speak in that debate I would have made the point that I regret that time has been given, yet again, to a three-hour debate on this question of proportional representation, when time is so precious on the Bill.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend had better be careful in that case not to say that he agrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), because he criticised the fact that such a short time was to be given to proportional representation.

Mr. Evans: I have spoken to my hon. Friend. I told him that he had made a magnificent case but that the weakest point was that he wanted more time on this subject.
I shall tell my right hon. Friend the reason. We debated proportional representation on the Scotland and Wales Bill. On Second Reading it was mentioned to a great extent. In Committee on that Bill we threw out the proportional representation system. Then the Front Bench listened to representations by some of us that Scotland and Wales should not be dealt with in the same Bill and, quite justifiably, the two were separated. Then, in Committee on the Scotland Bill we had another debate on proportional representation and it was thrown out by a definite, decided majority. On Report there was a further debate on proportional representation, after which the House threw out those proposals.
We then debated proportional representation in Committee on this Bill, and threw it out, which we did again on Report.
If that was not enough—because then we had sent it to another place—we came on to the European Assembly Elections Bill, on which the question of proportional representation was raised in Committee. We had a debate on proportional representation and—guess what?—it was thrown out. Again, on Report we debated proportional representation, and once

more we thre it out. Then it went to the House of Lords.

Mr. Tom Ellis: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but first I want to say this. On one occasion I was interrupted 15 times and then had a Front Bench speaker complaining that I was making a long speech.

Mr. Ellis: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that somebody who supports proportional representation sees the educative process resulting in such steadily increasing support for PR that he considers we should continue to debate it for a few more minutes?

Mr. Evans: I have not made an acute analysis of the figures. For instance, if there is a snap vote now, it may well be that we shall have a different result. Presumably we want to keep this debate going until 7 o'clock so that as many Members as possible can take part in the vote. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) shaking his head and implying that he does not want the debate to go on for that length of time. I believe that we should get off this debate as soon as we can, because we have debated PR on other occasions.
I do not think that PR should now be accepted, because the House of Commons made up its mind on this issue on the European Assembly Elections Bill. It threw out this proposal. In passing, I should say that as time goes on we know that Brussels will tell us what electoral system we must use, for that is how PR will be introduced into this country. It will not be introduced by the will of the majority of the House of Commons or by the will of the majority of the people of this country. It will be inflicted as an injunction coming from the Brussels Parliament.
We shall have eight brief debates in our consideration of Lords Amendments. There are 198 Lords amendments, contained in 21 pages of small print. They include 14 Government amendments. There are 33 clauses which this House has not debated, yet which the other place has debated and amended. The Government say that they have accepted some of these Lords amendments. But we as a House of Commons will not


know what the reasoning is or why the Lords amendments have been accepted, because they will have been accepted without discussion. That puts this House of Commons in a bad light.
Certain clauses, which will not be debated in this House, relate to the elections to the Assembly, to the disqualification of membership of the Assembly, to the executive committee of the Assembly and to the remuneration of Members of the Assembly.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The hon. Gentleman talked about a bad light. He is in danger of putting himself in a bad light with the Chair. He must stick to the question which we are debating, that of proportional representation.

Mr. Evans: I hope that the House will move on to discussing the many amendments which we shall be denied the opportunity of discussing if we continue discussing PR until 7 o'clock. There have been arguments that we should apparently change the system in order not to give the Labour Party in Wales such a beneficial position. But as was said on a previous occasion, of the 23 Labour Members who are sent to this House from Wales, 20 at present have an overall majority. Not one of the 13 Members representing Opposition parties has an overall majority. I have not seen any calculations suggesting that Labour would be placed at a natural disadvantage if the system were changed to PR. Indeed, it could he argued justifiably that if the electoral system were changed from first past the post it might benefit Labour. It is, therefore, wrong for the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to say that the Labour Party is opposed to PR because of party interest, when we all know that the Liberal Party believes in PR because that would be in its own political interest. I therefore hope that we shall bring this discussion on PR to a speedy conclusion.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: In regard to the allegation of self-interest of the Labour Party, would not my hon. Friend go further and agree that when the European Assembly Elections Bill was being discussed, all the calculations were that the first-past-the-post system would be a disadvantage to the Labour Party. Yet despite the dis-

advantage to the party, a large number of Labour Members voted for the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. He usually does when he interrupts, and I welcome his interruption. I believe that we should discuss this matter as one of principle. Since PR was rejected in both the Scotland and Wales Bill and in the European Assembly Elections Bill, I do not believe that English, Welsh and Scottish Members should now suggest that we should experiment with the Welsh Assembly. If hon. Members of this House, from whatever party, wish to change the electoral system of this country, they should have the opportunity of doing so in a Bill before this Parliament. I do not think that we should try to change this system through the back door.

Sir Raymond Gower: rose—

Mr. Evans: I shall not give way, because I want to be brief. I do not believe that we should introduce PR through the back door.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In the many debates that we have had on this issue over the last two years, I have disagreed with the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) on more than one occasion. I disagree with him again in relation to the specific provision as suggested by another place.
I do not believe that this would result in the situation which the hon. Gentleman suggested. He said that 20 Labour Members representing Welsh constituencies at present have overall majorities. I do not believe that that situation would result to an even greater extent in the Welsh Assembly. That could happen under some systems of PR, but not under the system proposed here.
The significant feature of the debates on various form; of PR, for various assemblies, that we have had over the last two years, has been the significant increase in support for some form of proportional representation. If I remember correctly that support has increased from 27 votes in the first debate in which I took part to 155 in the most recent Division. I am sure that the hon. Member for Aberdare will accept that over this century many radical proposals which have come into existence have started off


with small support. For instance, one thinks of the nationalisation of the coal mines. That started off with small support, which grew over the years until at last there was general acceptance and the proposal was implemented. I suggest that that is what will happen with PR, either in the context of the Welsh Assembly or in another context.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the hon. Gentleman consider PR a radical system, or does he acknowledge that the general experience of the use of this system is to ensconce a right-of-centre consensus, generally working in coalition, to govern whatever constituency that system covers? What can be radical about that?

Mr. Wigley: The proposed changes to the system are a radical set of changes from the system which exists at present. In a community such as Wales, which would be represented by the proposed Assembly, I suggest that a system of PR will get a balance of what I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept as radical opinions, albeit not from within one party. That is something which is worth while.
I move on to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It seemed that he advocated a system of PR while rejecting this specific system. If that is the case, I find it very difficult to understand why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues did not come up with their own system of PR which would have been acceptable to Conservative Members. At present, either we have the first-past-the-post system, which we have seen working in various forms both here and at local government level, or we have the system as proposed by the other place. Whether or not the system proposed by the other place is best, I would say that it is infinitely better than the first-past-the-post system, which is likely to enshrine all sorts of imbalances within a Welsh Assembly.
For a couple of years, I had the honour of sitting on the old Merthyr Tydfil borough council, which went out of existence following the reorganisation of local government. I sat in a council of 32 members. Twenty-seven of them were Labour, two were Independent Labour—

people who had had a row with the Labour Party—two were Ratepayers, who were reputed to vote Labour at General Elections, and there was myself. It is a nonsense to suggest that within that structure, which I recall was known locally as the "democratic one-party system", democratic debates took place. It was impossible. I suggest that in any Assembly of any kind one if the most important things is that there should be effective opposition in the Assembly or Council Chamber. In this way debates on real points of contention can take place, not within closed caucus meetings, but openly and in public.
In the context of the Welsh Assembly it is very important to ensure that there is a system that reflects the balance of opinion within Wales to the maximum extent.
5.30 p.m.
I accept the proposition put by the hon. Member for Wrexham that surely in this day and age if sovereignty means anything at all, it means the power that has been loaned by the people to their representatives. To that extent the representatives in an Assembly or in Parliament must reflect as closely as possible the balance of opinion in that community, if the Assembly is to reflect the sovereignty that has been vested in it in the correct way. This is fundamental in this day and age if we accept the democratic rule of the people.
Now that we have a new opportunity, a clean sheet of paper and a chance to draw up a far more equitable and fairer model, we must not fall back on a system which, in a multi-party situation, will bring imbalance and unfairness. To do that would merely lead us in the direction of blindness.
Not only is PR fairer and patently more acceptable, it is wanted by the general public. Time and time again every opinion poll has indicated that this is what the public wants. Hon. Members opposite have already refered to the referendum on this Bill. Surely if that referendum is applicable to the Bill—and it is, and it is right that it should be—why not give the people an opportunity to decide on the PR issue as well? It is an issue that is fundamental to the workings of the whole system.
It we lose this opportunity we shall build in something that has partial obsolescence before we start. Some hon. Members have said that it we introduce PR for the Welsh Assembly elections and not for other elections, we shall have a mixed system. But we know that in the second round of the European elections there will be a PR system. Therefore, we shall have to change anyway.
We have had the argument from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that if a minority is spread within the community there is a probability that that minority opinion would find a reflection within the two major parties in this Chamber or any Chamber. But that is a random probability. It may happen and it may not. If it is right that it does happen, why not have a system that enshrines it? If it is not right, then let us not do it. The argument does not appear to be whether it is right to give these minorities a voice and representation. The argument is whether we should have a scientific system of achieving that, or leave it to the whims of the selection processes in various constituencies—very often to be rubber-stamped afterwards in the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Obviously the hon. Member has thought very carefully about this. I am interested in his assessment of the position in Wales, but has he applied his mind to the system that is being advocated by the Lords—the system of the additional Member? Does he think that when a person has two votes lie will vote for a Member within a constituency and then he will vote for a different party? How often does he think that a person who votes for a Member would then vote for a different party?

Mr. Wigley: The pattern in Wales clearly varies considerably from area to area. There is no doubt that in many areas of the north and west of Wales there is greater weighting given to personal considerations than merely to party labels. This is seen clearly from the pattern of changing from party to party in constituencies in Wales. There are other areas in Wales where there is a more monolithic pattern.
I accept that there is a danger in some areas that if someone carries a party label, whatever his qualifications, he gets the support of the voter. The criticism has

been made by a number of speakers that PR will bring in an institutionalisation of our party system. The reality is that in Westminster and in the Welsh Assembly we shall run along party lines. The political party is already central to our system. This House could not work without the machinery of political parties, and I suggest that that will occur also in the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Kinnock: is there not 'in inconsistency here? The hon. Member has been critical of the party monoliths, vet he wants to adopt the system which guarantees that at least a proportion of the membership of the Assembly—perhaps a determining majority of it—will consist entirely of party hacks.

Mr. Wigley: It will not be made up of party hacks because of the way in which the system has been framed. If the hon. Member reads the Hansard report he will see the way in which that is overcome. Even if there is an element of the party hack finding its way into the Assembly it will he very much less than within a system of choice where the representative of an area is essentially chosen by the party machinery and the election process, is only a formality. We know that that happens in many contituencies in Wales and elsewhere by the very nature of the first-past-the-post system.
I disagree with the right hon. Member tor Cambridgeshire on the balance between north and south, or west and south and so on within Wales. The reality is that there is as much difference between the interests of Merthyr Tydfil and Cardiff as there is between Merthyr Tydfil and Pembroke or Merthyr Tydfil and Caernarvon. We have a microcosm in Wales of many different patterns in different areas, and that is a good reason for having PR There are so many different strands of minority interests that should have representation.
It is not a question of Glamorgan against the rest, because even within the Labour Party, as with other parties, there are so many different strands in different areas.
In conclusion, I urge the House to follow the pattern that has been followed in recent months in this Chamber. There will be a growing tide of support for proportional representation. Whether or not this system is ideal is not the point.


This is the system that we have an opportunity to vote on tonight. I hope that we shall see even greater progress tonight towards proportional representation for the Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Charles Morrison: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) has said. One of the things that always strikes me in these debates on proportional representation is the underlying assumption on the part of all those people who are against it that the existing first-past-the-post system is working satisfactorily. If anybody really thinks that he should ask the customers. Ask the man in the street. There are not many people who believe that the system we have today is working well. There is probably less interest in and more disillusionment with our political system today than ever before.
I am interested to know how some of those hon. Members who criticise PR can reconcile their contradictory criticisms. For example, it has been said today that PR breaks up political parties. On the other hand, we have heard it suggested that it gives power to existing party systems. I find it rather difficult to reconcile those two criticisms.
As the Minister of State said in opening the debate, there have been a number of discussions on this subject this year. In fact, this is the fifth occasion on which we have debated proportional representation. I doubt very much that it will be the last. It will be interesting to see whether there is a comparable number of debates next Session. I believe that the general debate will continue and that ultimately PR will be introduced because the electors will have demanded it. The electors are dissatisfied with the existing system and feel most uneasy about it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) asked for further debate and rightly said that there was not enough agreement about PR. I agree, but it is not the fault of those of us who favour PR that there has not been enough discussion. Those who are most to blame for the lack of more general, and perhaps better informed, public discussion must be the Govern-

ment. Normally it would be up to the Government to introduce a Green Paper or White Paper on the subject to help debate on its way.
These debates on PR go to the roots of the reason why we have a Wales Bill or a Scotland Bill. The Bills stem from the fact that electors have been dissatisfied because they find themselves at the receiving end of Government actions. That dissatisfaction is not limited to Wales or to Scotland alone. It is common to the United Kingdom. Therefore, to devolve power to Wales or Scotland is merely to touch on the problem, not to go to its origins.
In my view there is no hope of removing that dissatisfaction or of improving Government without a major change in the political system, and that is based on the electoral system. Surely Governments are the offspring of Parliament—although sometimes Governments tend to assume the opposite—and Parliament is the offspring of the electoral system. I believe that it is the electoral system that is at the root of public dissatisfaction.
If a first-past-the-post system was right, I would support it—and indeed until a few years ago I did support it. I would not criticise it on the ground that it is said to be unfair. It may be unfair, but more particularly it creates a House which does not adequately reflect the views of the public.
In debating yet again the electoral system for Wales, it is extraordinary that we are attempting to impose—if the Government have their way—an electoral system on Wales which is at the root of the current failings in the British political system as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire advanced specific reasons why PR is suitable for Wales, and I agree with what he said. However, I agree even more with the other place, and I believe that this House should accept its advice.

Mr. Anderson: It is a somewhat lofty view to suggest that such alienation as exists in the country is rooted in the electoral system. If I were to go to Brixton, or to some of the steel areas where workers fear for their jobs, and suggest that what is at the root of their alienation is whether there should be a first-past-the-post system or some other form


of PR, I would be laughed out of the town, and deservedly so.
My thesis is that all systems of electoral representation are proportional and that some are more proportional than others. The first-past-the-post system achieves one method of forming a relationship between a number of votes cast for a political party and the number of seats which that party obtains. That is proportional. There are other forms of PR which have been proposed and which have various disadvantages.
5.45 p.m.
I found the insight in the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) interesting. Clearly, there are advantages and disadvantages in every system. One advantage of the first-past-the-post system is that it may achieve some of the merits of coalition which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the coalition being within the individual party, and may have some beneficial effect for the country as a whole without the disadvantages of the weakness and lack of responsibility to the electorate that normally flows from coalition politics.
Although I concede that we may be in a period of change within our own political context, traditionally our first-past-the-post system has provided stability in government. The rise of the minority parties since 1970 has perhaps temporarily prevented such stable government, but it has been the normal pattern. Therefore, are the disadvantages of PR which we have debated so frequently to be considered outweighed by the advantages put forward in a Welsh context?
I was intrigued by the studied ambiguity in the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). He appeared to be akin to the man who wants to be good—but not yet. He believes in PR in general and as a principle and thinks that there are many good points to be said for it, but he does not believe in this particular system. The weakness of that case was pointed out by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley). If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that PR is right in principle, surely it was incumbent on him to have tabled that form of representation by way of amendment and to have tried to drum up support in Parliament for it.
The right hon. Gentleman has not taken that step, but instead has relied on the vague view "I understand those of you in the House who favour PR. I am with you so far, but not on this particular proposal." I had hoped to hear something a little more positive from the right hon. Member than a Gaullist "I understand" kind of apporach, which can be taken in whatever way the hearer wishes.
I was also intrigued by the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). He thought that objections to the Assembly in Wales might be removed among a significant section of Welsh public opinion if the electoral system were changed in favour of PR. He knows as well as I that the objections to the Assembly derive largely from views about how we in Wales recognise our national identity. There are those who quite properly say that Wales is a nation which deserves its own form of government, and there also are those who say that there would probably be more serious disadvantages and advantages in setting off along a path the ultimate end of which would probably be the break-up of the United Kingdom. There are dangers involved, These basic tribal views determine our ideas about the Assembly rather than any peripheral reactions to whether we are in favour of a PR system. Therefore, I do not think the view taken of the electoral system is likely to influence any significant sector of Welsh public opinion.
The hon. and learned Gentleman accused the Labour Front Bench of acting out of self-interest. That argument was demolished by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). If the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to use arguments in such terms, one could well counter by saying that historically the Liberal Party did not favour PR at a time when it was in power and had a chance of putting it into effect. It was only when PR appeared to be elector-ally advantageous to the Liberal Party that it moved to act in favour of it.

Mr. Hooson: That is historically incorrect. Lloyd-George set up a Speaker's Conference and although it recommended in favour of proportional representation, there has never subsequently been a Liberal Government to implement it.

Mr. Anderson: I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that until the First World War, the Liberal Party was in power on a number of occasions and could have changed the electoral system if it had wished. The system suited the Liberals well at that time and we heard little about any changes.

Mr. Kinnock: Some jaundiced interpreters of history would suggest that the Liberal Party was so self-interested that it extended the franchise only for the purpose of self-enhancement.

Mr. Anderson: I do not want to follow my hon. Friend on that path, but the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested that there was a certain ambiguity about what bound together the Liberal Members. It may be that the only common nexus is a belief in electoral reform.
I cannot help feeling, perhaps a little cynically, that the new-found enthusiasm of certain Conservative Members for a package of electoral reform and Bills of rights includes the political wish to remove the possibility of a Labour Government being returned with a clear majority and carrying out socialist policies. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that one of his fears was that the Assembly would be able to carry out Socialist policies. He almost converted me to supporting my Front Bench in favour of the Assembly, but I shall refrain from following that through to its conclusion.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire suggested that the need to achieve strong government, which would be met by a first-past-the-post system outweighed the advantages of proportional representation for Westminster elections. If he accepts that view in principle, he should surely apply it with equal force to the electoral system in local government. I put that point to him and his answer in seeking to distinguish the local government electoral system from that proposed for the Assembly was that there was a difference of scale. But surely it is a matter of principle rather than of scale, whatever the numbers of the electorate in any form of government.
Perhaps one of the major disadvantages of any system of proportional representation is that it will lead, as night follows day, to coalition and to a lack of political

responsibility on the part of an individual elected Member who will be able to say to the electorate that his party believed in certain policies, but that the wicked partners in the coalition had ensured, through decisions taken behind closed doors, that those policies could not be carried out.

Mr. Wigley: That happens now.

Mr. Anderson: Yes, but it would be enshrined continually in the system if we had proportional representation. At present it is a haphazard and irregular consequence of our electoral system.

Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we have had much more stable government since his party has been in a minority than we had when it was in a majority and the Secretary of State for Energy was running amok?

Mr. Anderson: If I am invited to give a one word answer, it must be "No". Over the past 18 months, there has been a degree of immobility in our political system. The Government have been unable to govern and we have been waiting for an election giving a decisive result one way or the other. That is not a system of government which I would want to be perpetuated by the institution of proportional representation.
We shall lose a substantial degree of the responsibility that we have under the two-party system. I am not in favour of a change for its own sake. If proportional representation is to come here, it will come first on the European level, rather than through a decision taken by this House. It may be a necessary part of the treaty we have signed to harmonise the electoral system for the European Parliament.
We have gone over this ground many times and on each occasion we have rejected proposals for proportional representation for very good reasons. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, although there are different powers proposed for Scotland and Wales in the two Bills, we cannot seek on that basis to distinguish the electoral system appropriate to either Assembly. The proportional representation system was decisively rejected in the Scotland Bill and it will be similarly decisively rejected tonight. To a large extent, the whole debate is otiose and exposes the rigidity of the guillotine. We are forced


to debate this subject until 7 p.m. before we can go on to matters that have not previously been discussed.

Mr. Peter Thomas: As the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) has said, we have gone over this ground on several occasions and the House has decisively indicated its opposition to proportional representation. One cannot help but think that the votes reflect the views of hon. Members on the question of proportional representation generally and, in particular, as it affects Westminster.
I am firmly in favour of the first-past-the-post system for this House and I see no reason for it to be changed in the near future. However, that does not mean that we should not consider with some care the extremely able and important speeches made in another place in favour of a change for the devolved Assemblies.
I have been concerned about whether it is right that for the proposed Assemblies we should look at proportional representation in terms of whether it is of value to those Assemblies, rather than in terms of how we see it affecting this House. I know that there has been concern about what has been described as the thin end of the wedge, but I have not been particularly disturbed by that argument because we shall get the thin end of the wedge anyway in the European elections. Our first representatives in the European Parliament may be elected on the first-past-the-post system, but there is no doubt that eventually they will have to be returned on a system that is acceptable to Europe generally. In the same way we have the precedent—we have had it for some time—of Northern Ireland, with all its imperfections.
6.0 p.m.
We should consider these matters from the point of view of the sort of Assembly that it is proposed to set up and those who will be represented by it. I voted in favour of the proportional representation system suggested by their lordships for Scotland. I still do not believe that that system is valid for this place. I voted in favour of their Lordships' amendment because of the fear that has been expressed by many in Scotland that arises from the interesting situation in which the three main parties—the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Scottish National

Party—have roughly the same support and strength.
If we assume that that is so at the time of the election, the national parties—namely, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party—will be united in one respect, their determination to preserve the unity of the United Kingdom. Under the first-past-the-post system it is possible that the Scottish nationalists with, for example. 30 per cent. of the poll will command a majority of the seats. If that came about, it would be in a position—it would probably consider that it had the mandate to do so—actively to concern itself in the Assembly towards the end to that it is committed to—namely, the breaking up of the unity between Scotland and England.
That is the fear that has been expressed. Rightly or wrongly, it is felt by many. I also find that most people are unable to offer any clear mathematical answer. It was felt that the additional Member system would ensure a more equitable representation in the Assembly and would help towards eliminating the possibility that caused so much fear when it was discussed.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in introducing a system, be it proportional representation or anything else, it is dangerous to do so with the obvious object of dishing a political party permanently?

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: It would be disgraceful.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend says that it would be disgraceful, and certainly it would be dangerous. If we set up a subordinate Parliament in a part, though only a part, of the United Kingdom, we still have a problem. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's figures are correct, it seems that we shall have to have a coalition. Either one of the major parties would have to go into coalition with the nationalists. If that were done, there would be a price to pay down the road to separation. The alternative is a Tory-Labour coalition, which would look a bit odd in Smith Square.

Mr. Thomas: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am personally opposed to the creation of an Assembly in Wales. I


should prefer not to see an Assembly set up. I have every hope that the referendum will produce that result. However, I am thinking of what will happen in the unhappy eventuality that an Assembly is established.
I was impressed by the argument in favour of a proportional representation system for the Scottish Assembly. In Scotland we have a party that is committed to separatism and there is the possibility that with 30 per cent. of the vote it will be in a majority. That would affect the whole structure of the United Kingdom. I thought that it was right to vote for a different system that could be used as an experiment and might make a fairer result. I voted accordingly.
I have to consider whether the same consideration applies to Wales. In Wales there is a totally different situation. I do not consider Plaid Cymru to be a threat. At the last election I think that it had nearly 11 per cent. of the poll. That vote gave it three seats in this place. We have heard from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) that the Liberal Party has 15 per cent. of the vote in Wales but only two seats. I do not see a threat in Wales from Plaid Cymru and those who are committed to a separate Wales. As the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) knows, certainly two of the Plaid Cymru Members—he is one and the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) is the other—are in the House because of cross-voting. In Caernarvon and Carmarthen the Conservatives seized the opportunity to get rid of the Labour candidate. They did so by voting for Plaid Cymru. The hon. Member for Caernarvon and Carmarthen know that only too well.
The vote for Plaid Cymru in Wales is no more than 10 per cent., and it may he less. Therefore, it does not pose a great threat. It is not to be expected that under a first-past-the-post system there would be any majority in the Welsh Assembly of those who wish to break up the unity of the United Kingdom. There will he a Labour Party majority. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) that things are changing in Wales, but we must be realistic. Under a first-past-the-post system there would be an almost inbuilt majority in the Assembly, and under the

system that is suggested by the Lords there would be an inbuilt majority.
When an elector has two votes—there would be three votes in a two-Member constituency and two votes in a one-Member constituency—he will vote for a candidate and then for a party. It would be exceptional for the second vote to be given to a different party. Therefore, the Labour Party may look forward to an Assembly in which for some time it will have an almost inbuilt and permanent majority.
My problem is how I should deal with that position as a political animal. If I thought that proportional representation would in some way help to diminish the unfortunate hold that the Labour Party now has on Wales, I should vote for it without hesitation. We must be honest as political animals. We must do what we think is right politically. That means that I do not know in which way I can properly vote tonight. The only reason that impels me to vote for proportional representation is that I am not frightened of the experiment. I do not consider that it will affect the voting system applying to this place.
There is plenty of precedent. It is to be found in Europe and different parts of the world. I think that it was Lord Hailsham who said in another place that there are 14 or 15 different systems in the world for electing candidates to democratic assemblies and that each one is rotten until we consider the rest. It is a matter of choosing the best method for the Assembly with which we are involved. I consider that the first-past-the-post system is the best system for this place. If the Assembly is set up in Wales, I do not think that it will affect this place if we change the system and experiment with the voting system for the Assembly.
In the Lords, practically all the vote against the amendment was comprised of Labour peers. Although there is no Whip tonight, apart from the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis), who is admired for his independence and the way that he expresses his views without fear, it looks as though the whole monolithic power of the Labour Party will be coming to vote tonight. For that reason, I think that I shall vote with my hon. Friend the Member for Barry in favour of proportional representation.

Mr. Grocott: Having listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), I feel somewhat of an innocent abroad in this debate. Clearly, his decision has been reached on carefully calculated political considerations. At least he was honest enough to admit that, in his analysis of electoral systems, he weighed up how they would benefit the Conservative Party and then decided which way to vote. I suppose that is an element in all our deliberations.
I say that I am an innocent abroad because, not being a student of electoral behaviour in Wales as the people of Wales have so far shown no great enthusiasm for electing me to any particular position, I have no idea what the effect of either proportional representation, on the one hand, or first-past-the-post, on the other hand, will have on the outcome of elections to the Welsh Assembly. I can only plead in mitigation that, like many of my hon. Friends, I voted for the first-past-the-post system for the European Assembly elections when all the calculations that I saw at that time—admittedly, since the constituencies have been redrawn, the situation may now be different—were that that would be to the disadvantage of the Labour Party. Therefore, some of us may be acquitted of looking at these matters simply and solely in terms of immediate party advantage.
I must admit to a certain resentment at the debate taking place. I have an inbuilt resentment at having to spend time in the House—time that could well be spent with my family at the seaside or elsewhere—discussing amendments sent to us by the House of Lords. I have that general prejudice.
In view of the decision that we shall be taking on this matter following the election—to abolish the House of Lords—I feel that perhaps a phasing in period would be right. In anticipation of abolition, I think that we should allow, say, 20 minutes or half an hour to discuss Lords amendments on Bills when they come back from the other place for consideration here.
Having said that I have a general antipathy towards considering Lords amendments, I should point out that there is a particularly intense antipathy on my part to receiving lectures from the House of Lords on electoral systems. For the

House of Lords to give us advice on electoral systems is rather like a teetotaller giving lectures on the joys of drink. Simple membership of the upper House suggests an aversion to electoral systems. That certainly applies to those who have never been Members of this House—those who have achieved their positions by the hereditary principle. Clearly, the feeling for the need for elections cannot be held dear by Members of the other House. The fact that democratic institutions involve elections cannot be crucial to their deliberations. That is an antipathy that I feel.
6.15 p.m.
I turn once again and rather wearily to the merits of proportional representation as opposed to first-past-the-post. When I listen to some of the debates, I feel that I need to rethink all the lessons that were drummed into most of us when we were younger on the merits of the English political system compared with the political systems in many other parts of the world. It may be good to rethink these matters. In particular, I remember the lectures that were always given on the French system under the Fourth Republic—before they got rid of PR—and the assumption that the great evils of the French political system were entirely attributable to their adherence to PR in its purest form. We looked rather wearily at the French, who seemed unable to manage their affairs in the way in which we did, and attributed their failure to the PR system. Many of those criticisms are absolutely right today.

Mr. Tom Ellis: In order to get the facts of the matter correct, I remind my hon. Friend that France does not have a proportional representation system.

Mr. Grocott: I thought that I clearly said that I was talking about France under the Fourth Republic, before the advent of de Gaulle in 1958, when, of course, France abandoned proportional representation. I agree with my hon. Friend that the ascendancy of France can be dated almost from the time that it abandoned proportional representation. Proportional representation was not a very happy experience for the French.
We have had many suggestions that the British people want proportional representation. Opinion polls, for what


they are worth, tell us that PR would be desirable. They also tell us that the public do not want the consequences of PR. They tell us that the public do not like coalition Governments and that they do not like the fudging of issues. On many issues, the public may will the means for what sounds attractive but not the inevitable consequences of those means. As politicians, it is our job to give advice on the inevitable consequences and to make our decision on that basis.
Whatever our views on the merits of different electoral systems, I think that the worst of all possible worlds would be a medley of different electoral systems within one unitary State. We have had so many different votes recently—on the European Assembly Elections Bill, on the Scotland Bill and now on the Wales Bill—that there is a danger of having different electoral systems at different levels. That seems patently the worst possible thing to do.
Surely, our democracy should be intelligible so that the public understand what they are voting for and how decisions are reached as a result of their votes. Let us by all means have a decision in this Parliament on what kind of system seems right for this country. But to have different methods at different levels seems the worst of all possible alternatives. I believe that it is right for the House to do what it has repeatedly done over the last few months—to vote again for the first-past-the-post system.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I welcome the impressive speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas). Those of us who have been campaigning for proportional representation must reckon this afternoon that we have attracted our most distinguished recruit so far.
On the matter of proportional representation, I am a whole Hogger—a devoted admirer of Lord Hailsham whose arguments were so massively effective in the Lords. Indeed, I should like this House to be elected on a proportional representation system, for reasons into which it would not be in order for me to go at this time.
However, I know that the House will not be elected by proportional representation, if only for the good reason that too many hon. Members who gained their seats by one method of election might lose them because of another. Vested interests dictate that they will vote for the system that provided them with their seats. On a rough calculation, I do not think that my seat would be in danger under PR, but I might be wrong.
I suspect that if the result of the next General Election is what I fear—and not what I hope—a large number of hon. Members from both sides of the House will bitterly rue their refusal to accept the idea of proportional representation for elections to the House.
It would be dangerous to have a hung Parliament in which the balance of power was held not by what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) described as a diffuse minority—a minority spread throughout the whole of the United Kingdom through the Liberal Party—but by a motley alliance of concentrated minorities, each with widely disparate aims and ambitions and harsh and irreconcilable terms to dictate as the price of their co-operation.
That is the main reason why I have for a long time advocated that we should have a system of proportional representation which would give the Liberal Party—and I hold no brief for it or its views—the balance of power. I would rather the Liberals hold that balance than the Scottish National Party or the Ulster Unionists.
Proportional representation for the election to the Welsh Assembly holds no threat to the seats of any hon. Member of the House. There is no self-interested reason why any of us should vote against the proposition. The House of Lords has no self-interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) said that that was a matter for reproach. He said it was wrong that the Lords—the teetotallers—should preach the joys of alcohol. It is more rational to say that the House of Lords is disinterested and therefore more likely to come to a decision which it genuinely believes to be in the interests of the country as a whole.
I was impressed by the result of the last vote in the other place-151 to 66—and by the composition of the losing minority. All but 12 of the losers were supporters of the Labour Party. On that occasion they were obeying an unwritten Labour Party Whip.

Mr. John Smith: The Government have made their position clear, both in this House and in the House of Lords. There has been a free vote on each occasion when this matter has arisen. That applies to the House of Lords just as much as here.

Sir A. Meyer: I do not know whether the Whips on the Government side are less persuasive than they are on this side of the House. Certainly on some of the free votes that have been held on proportional representation the Whips on my side were persuasive. They are persuasive and congenial fellows. I listened carefully to what they said. It might not have been a Whipped vote, but Members were strongly advised and encouraged to vote in a particular way.

Mr. Dalyell: That is not true.

Sir A. Meyer: I accept the hon. Member's assurance. But the composition of that majority was surprisingly homogenous.
There has been a good deal of discussion about what form of proportional representation is the best and most suitable. We are debating only one form of PR—the additional Member system. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said that this system would pose problems that would be even greater if the system were applied to this House. I accept that the adoption of the additonal Member system for the Commons would create certain special problems. It would create two categories of Member—one with constituency responsibilities and one without.
I still believe that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, but I accept that the additional Member system for elections to this House would have the special disadvantage of creating two categories of Member. I do not see that that disadvantage applies with the same force to the proposed Welsh Assembly.
The most common objection to the additional Member system is that it gives

too much power to the party machine. The assumption is that the party machine in the two great buildings in Smith Square draw up their lists of party hacks and thrust them down the throats of the electorate. The elector has a free vote. He has one vote for his candidate and another for his party. In seeking the support of the electors the parties will try to produce an attractive list. If the list consists entirely of party hacks it will not be attractive. That dispenses with the argument that this is a way of foisting an unwanted party hack on a reluctant public.
There is another argument in favour of the system, which I should have liked to deploy in the presence of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who has left the Chamber. The right hon. Member for a long time has enjoyed a substantial majority in Anglesey. I suspect that many Conservatives vote for the right hon. Member out of personal regard for him. Under the additional Member system, if a candidate were as attractive as the right hon. Member, Conservatives cheerfully could go on voting for him and give their second vote to the party of their choice. That would be thoroughly desirable.
The right hon. Member's distinguished successor as candidate for the Anglesey seat might find that he did not benefit from the machinery which has been so beneficial to the present right hon. Member for Anglesey.
The further argument in favour of the additional Member system is the other side of the party hack argument. It is that it enables contributions to be made by men and women with outstanding talent, but who lack the gifts of the demagogue and of standing on a public platform and making speeches which attract the interest of the audience. That argument should not be rejected. If the Assembly comes into being it will not be so rich in talent that it can afford to dispense with the services of such people.
The conclusive argument is that if this extraordinary rigmarole ever comes into being and we have the fantastic structure of committees with their mixed compositions and chairmen acting as executives, it cannot be worked if the parties are as sharply divided as they are bound to be under the first-past-the-post


system. Any type of proportional representation which has the effect of driving the parties, willy nilly, into closer co-operation, must somewhat reduce the practical difficulties in the way of the Government's scheme for making the committee structure function.
For all those reasons I hope that we shall have a substantial vote in favour of the system of proportional representation proposed by the Lords. It will be good for democracy. In the long term it will be good for British democracy as a whole. I am certain that it is the only way in which this impossible scheme can be made to work.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) said about the undesirability of a medley of electoral systems. I want to suggest strongly, as I did in an intervention and as others have done, that if it is thought, be it the truth of not, that a particular form of electoral system is introduced with the desire of dishing a particular political party—one, in this case, with which I do not agree—that is very unsatisfactory.

Mr. Powell: indicated assent.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Mr. Powell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was clearly referring—and I was agreeing with him—to the imposition of proportional representation on Northern Ireland for exactly that pupose.

Mr. Dalyell: I am not as uptight about this Bill as about the Scotland Bill, and not only because I am not a Welshman but party because I see it not as the motorway to a separate State but rather in terms of a confused system of government. I believe that PR would make an unholy muddle even more certain.
Is it not right to suggest that the Welsh Assembly is to have power only to execute laws—and laws which are fashioned here at Westminster? The Scottish Assembly at least will be a lawmaking body, but here we are presented with a completely different set of new relationships, hitherto untried in the government of the United Kingdom. This is a novel division of powers. We are dividing powers held by the Secretary of

State for Wales roughly into half and giving some to the Assembly.
Responsibility for the domestic affairs of Wales will thus be shared by the Cabinet and the Welsh Assembly. PR makes it more likely that the Cabinet party—whichever party is in charge of the Cabinet at a given time—will be operating through an instrument of a different political party.
For example, supposing that there is a Conservative Prime Minister in Downing Street. How will the Welsh Assembly—perhaps a Labour Welsh Assembly—operate laws on, for example, pay beds, comprehensive schools or some other matter that it finds distasteful? It will in a sense be the instrument of someone else's law. If the comparison is local government, we are into a different field. There is a major problem here, and PR is likely to make it marginally worse.

Mr. John Smith: Will my hon. Friend explain one conundrum to me? In October 1974, he invited the Government to speed up the proposals for devolution to Scotland. He subsequently explained that his later opposition to them was because he had discovered that the devolution was of a legislative kind. He now says that executive but non-legislative devolution is undesirable. What kind of devolution, if it was not that, was he urging on the Government in 1974?

Mr. Dalyell: I explained this at some length in a book that I wrote, if I may be so immodest as to mention it. We have all made mistakes. There was a time when my right hon. Friend suggested eloquently that it would be wrong—

Mr. John Smith: That is not the point.

Mr. Dalyell: It is very much the point—to have 71 Scottish MPs and a Scottish Assembly. We all have skeletons in the cupboard, and I laid mine bare in the first months of 1975.
As my right hon. Friend knows, at the August 1974 conference, as a member of the Scottish Executive of the party, I was very unhappy about this. Yes, as I have explained, I went along with party policy yes, I did not understand that what was involved was a Scottish Prime Minister and the whole paraphernalia. But I am open about it.

Mr. John Smith: I do not want to pursue my hon. Friend maliciously about this, but I genuinely did not understand the explanation in his book—which I read with care, he having been kind enough to supply me with a copy for nothing, which was very generous of him. If he was confused in August 1974, why in October 1974 did he ask the Government to speed it up? Was it not non-legislative executive devolution that he was asking for for Scotland?

Mr. Dalyell: We must be candid about these matters. I was chairman of the Scottish Labour group of MPs. There was a press conference. In answer to the question, was I in favour of creating the Assembly quickly, I said that I was. It was my view at that time, in October 1974, that if the thing had to be done after the election, it should be done quickly. Speaking as the chairman of the Scottish group, I felt then that that was the appropriate answer to give.
For all my shortcomings in this, I have never pretended to be a knight in shining armour. In January 1975, it was clear that the proposition was very different from what those of us had thought it was in August and September 1974, that the animal was transformed—

Mr. John Smith: No.

Mr. Dalyell: It was transformed: this is part of the whole story—

Mr. Smith: It is the same animal.

Mr. Dalyell: The proposition which was put forward was altered—

Mr. Smith: No.

Mr. Dalyell: —to become a bit more extreme, gradually, with the ratchet effect.
I return to the Wales Bill. The British system has been based hitherto on a fusion of legislative and executive powers. Kilbrandon said:
The division would be an arbitrary one, in that the range of powers conferred on the assemblies would depend on a political judgment of the extent of the control it was necessary to retain at the centre.
The powers that Cardiff will enjoy depend not only on Wales Bill provisions but on the way in which future legislation for Wales is framed at Westminster and the degree of discretion which Westmin-

ster thinks it right to confer on the Welsh Assembly.
The argument is that in those circumstances, in that PR makes it that much more likely that there will be an Executive in Cardiff different from the party in power at Westminster, there will be even more confusion and muddle. Denied a legislative role, the Welsh Assembly will have to rely on pressures exerted at Westminster and Whitehall in the pre-legislative stages of policy making.
Does not a system of PR make it even less likely that there can he a coherent strategy because of a Welsh Assembly being used as an instrument of a political party other than that which is likely to have or may have control of power in Cardiff? We are once again at an irreducible point where there is a basic geographical confusion which no amount of discussion can overcome.

Mr. Stan Thorne: It is unfortunate that a debate about proportional representation has to take place in the atmosphere of a guillotine, because it forces Members to cut short some of the arguments that they would wish to develop.
Like most hon. Members I believe that politics is about power, and one might legitimately ask "Whose power?" We in Britain claim to be a democracy, and to some degree that answers the question. We say that we are for people's power, which is the literal translation of the word "democracy". We are also in favour of representative democracy. In other words, the Members are elected by and for the people. But very few Members of Parliament are elected on the basis of a majority of the votes cast in their constituencies. I was elected on the basis of 43 per cent. of the vote. In other words, 57 per cent. of the voters said "No" to me. If PR had been in existence at the time of the 1974 election it might have made the "No" more decisive. On the other hand, it might have clarified the electorate's choice. One can only speculate about the outcome.
With few exceptions Governments since the war have been formed by parties which secured a minority of the votes cast in the election. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said that PR means a coalition, and he asked us to accept that as


a statement of fact which was beyond question. I would question it, but time is not on by side. It seems to me that for a Socialist to make that sort of statement is a blatant admission of defeat in advance.
My hon. Friend said also that PR would become enshrined in the system. It could be argued that first past the post is enshrined in the system, but that does not seem to me to be a good argument for not proceeding to examine it. My hon. Friend then made the observation about change being made for its own sake. I do not think that those who advocate PR are doing so on that basis.
My hon. Friend scoffed at the idea that the electorate in his and other areas would be likely to increase their alienation to the electoral system. He suggested that the people were interested in jobs, houses, the Health Service, and so on. Those are matters of genuine concern to a large section of the British people, and rightly so. It seems that the alienation of the people is a product of their own inability to influence the decision-making process, in other words, their lack of power in determining the nature of the Health Service or the education system, or the way in which the Exchequer spends our resources.
How does the electorate become more powerful in determining or attempting to determine some of these decisions? It may be, as some of my hon. Friends argue, in all sincerity, that the electorate does it by electing a party with complete power to take decisions in this House. That has been happening for a very long time, not with a diminution of alienation but with a tendency for it to increase. Many hon. Members sit from time to time in the Tea Room bemoaning the limitation on their individual power. If we are honest about these matters we will admit that the only people in this place with power are the members of the very small, closely-knit politically motivated group known as the Cabinet. We on the Back Benches have little or no power.

Mr. Kinnock: Does my hon. Friend think that that situation will be improved or worsened by a Cabinet that is produced by the largest single party being dependent upon the smallest single party, so that the tail invariably wags the dog

and we have the worst of all possible worlds?

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Thorne: That is the most difficult question to answer in the short run—

Mr. Kinnock: That is why I asked it.

Mr. Thorne: I say that there is a prima facie case for saying that there would be less alienation among the members of the electorate were they able to say that on the basis of PR they had voted in a particular way with the object of saying whom they preferred to represent them in this House.
There is no such thing as a perfect electoral system, but there is a system by which the ordinary man in the street can say "I want Joe Bloggs to represent me, and if not Joe Bloggs, Tom Smith, and if not Tom Smith, Jack Brown". He could acknowledge, in the final analysis, that at least he made some contribution towards the ultimate outcome under that electoral system.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Under the additional member system that we are discussing those voting will not even know the names of the people who will be elected, because of the way in which they will cast their votes.

Mr. Thorne: I accept that wholly, but we are not arguing what is the best system of PR. We are voting on an amendment and we have to accept the situation as it is. We are not in a position to discuss whether we should introduce the STD system or any other method.
Every hon. Member is faced with the decision whether, in principle, he would seek to vote for this amendment because it gives the Welsh people the opportunity to experiment in an election on the basis of PR. Whether the system involved here is right is a matter for speculation.
In essence I am suggesting that the more democratic the system we create—and I believe that PR is a bit more democratic than first past the post—the more likely it is perhaps to lead—I put it no stronger than that—to less alienation among the electorate. Very few hon. Members can be satisfied with the opinion and attitude that exists among the electorate towards politicians per se. The degree of cynicism about and alienation from this place has never been greater.


It is worth while experimenting in Wales on this basis to see whether it leads to a diminution of alienation.
It is right that we should have a free vote on this matter. It would be a remarkable Whip, anyway, who could persuade me to support the Government on this occasion. This is a matter for the individual. I believe that PR—I would need to discuss precisely which system, in depth—is more democratic than first past the post.

Mr. John Smith: Our debate has gone over, at some length, the arguments of principle that we had when we discussed the Scotland Bill. In the Wales Bill there has been added to that more detail about the circumstances, but I do not think that anything has been said in the debate that would change the advice that I have to offer to the House on behalf of the Government. I stress once again that the Government have agreed to a free vote on this occasion.

Mr. Dalyell: May I ask my right hon. Friend at what stage in our proceedings he will explain—this may not be the right moment to do it—the serious problem of the way in which the Welsh Assembly, given PR or any other system, will operate, given that the laws are fashioned here, at Westminster, by another institution? May we have guidance on the question: at what stage it is suggested that it would be convenient to discuss his basic problem?

Mr. Smith: I think that there will be many occasions on which my hon. Friend can ask that question. The difficulty for me is keeping within the bounds of relevancy. I feel a little more restricted by the rules of relevancy than does my hon. Friend. I do not know that this would be the most appropriate time to attempt to comply with my hon. Friend's request.
However, I might observe that my hon. Friend's constant objection to the Scotland Bill has been that legislative capacity is given to the Scottish Assembly; yet his constant concern about the Welsh Assembly is that no legislative capacity is given to it. It seems that my hon. Friend picks whatever argument comes to hand against the concept of devolution, however it is expressed, in Scotland or in

Wales. I do not know whether he has yet answered the question that although he was in favour—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister should address himself to the amendment.

Mr. Smith: I am very rightly rebuked, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I think that that rebuke will be taken also by my hon. Friend, who incited me along that path of irrelevancy.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 389, Noes 162.

[For Division List No. 288 see c. 723]

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to he concluded at Seven o'clock.

Lords amendments nos. 2 to 10 and 14 to 17 disagreed to.

Clause 5

DISQUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 4 line 12, at end insert—
("( )he is a member of the House of Commons; or")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 260, Noes 293.

[For Division List No. 289 see c. 728]

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment no. 20 disagreed to.

Lords amendment nos. 11 to 13, 18 and 21 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 12

REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 6, line 30, leave out Clause 12.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government believe that we have made a sensible provision here for the reform of local government and much regret that, by a narrow majority, clause 12 in the original Bill was struck out in another place. We commend the restoration of the original proposal. As Secretary of State and in a private capacity I go about Wales a great deal and have done so for a number of years. No one who goes across Wales could say, particularly in recent times, that there the people are content with the present system of local government. I put it as neutrally as I can. No one could argue that the system is working well, or is good.
Attacks are made on our proposal to set up an Assembly. It is argued that it will mean bureaucracy, remoteness and cost. One wonders whether the critics are deaf to the same criticisms, made much more loudly and to a greater degree, of our reorganised local government. We have had an increase in bureaucracy. As for remoteness, one of the larger rural counties measures 80 miles from end to end and another covers three old counties and is probably not far short of 80 miles from end to end. The problem of cost also applies.
The Conservatives are the authors of our misfortune in Wales in having the present system of local government. As they are the parents of this strange child, I can understand why they defend it. They created it, and they want to maintain the status quo, although it has not been a success. Some of the same arguments can be advanced against their reorganisation of the Health Service. There has been no overwhelming enthusiasm for their reorganisation of the water system.

Sir Raymond Gower: The right hon. and learned Gentleman blamed the size

of the rural counties upon reorganisation, but he will surely recall that the proposals of his own party for North Wales envisaged a much larger county—the whole of North Wales, including the present counties of Clwyd and Gwynedd. What we created was half the size of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's party contemplated.

Mr. Morris: There certainly was such a proposal at one stage. The hon. Gentleman studies these matters very closely in South Wales, but he perhaps does not always study them with the same assiduity in North Wales. That proposal was dropped.
I am advised that Powys is 80 miles from one end to the other, and I am sure that Dyfed is, from the top end near Ealwysbach down to Angle in Pembrokeshire, not far short of that distance. They are immense distances.
I was not surprised to hear the resolution passed by Dyfed county council, but since withdrawn, that it should seek to dissolve itself. That was the measure of its confidence at one stage. I am the first to concede that thereafter it again changed its mind, but the resolution showed that there are immense difficulties in administering the present system.
No one who goes across Wales can gain a picture of enormous confidence and say that we should retain the present system without some examination.

Mr. Michael Roberts: Did the Secretary of State notice the recent BBC poll in which 42 per cent. of the people in Wales expressed their satisfaction with local government? Does he agree that that is remarkably high for local government, or does he think that there was a golden age when people loved the Glamorgan County Council?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman seeks to put his faith in polls. On another issue, that same poll shows the advance of the devolution case generally. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman who is very fair-minded, would not want to shut his ears to the substantial criticism—I put it as neutrally as I can—from one end of Wales to the other, varying in intensity from area to area and usually varying with the issue causing concern at a particular time.
I have travelled extensively in Wales during the past four and a half years and have probably been through as many communities as, if not more communities than, anyone here. One returns with the strong impression that there is a substantial degree of dissatisfaction from one end of Wales to the other with the present system. Apart from the issues that I have already described—bureaucracy, remoteness, and cost—the causes include duplications of functions. That is particularly so in some areas in South Glamorgan, especially in planning.
There is also the dissatisfaction of the old county boroughs, which have lost their powers. I am sure that during the debate we shall hear more about the carve-up, for peculiar reasons, of the old county of Glamorgan. I am sure that there will be a division of opinion tonight about the degree of dissatisfaction, but I hope that no one will contend that there is not dissatisfaction, such as to demand an urgent and speedy look at the whole system. The demand comes from many quarters—from some of the local authorities, particularly the districts, from some of the county councils, from trade unions and certainly very strongly from the Labour Party.

Mr. Ioan Evans: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about the counties, but it is not a fact that although seven of them have expressed discontent over devolution and Gwynedd has expressed some acceptance of it, all eight counties of Wales are united in hoping that the House will delete the clause? Hon. Members have received correspondence from the counties about it.

Mr. Morris: Hon. Members have indeed received correspondence, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to a report in the Western Mail on 24th June. It said that at the deliberations of the Welsh Counties Committee, the body where the counties of Wales meet to consider their policies, fear was expressed that the Welsh counties could become
too identified with the House of Lords in opposing local government provisions to the Welsh Assembly legislation.
The leader of the West Glamorgan county council, Mr. John Allison, was quoted as saying:
I can imagine our friends in the districts saying that they have the House of Commons

behind them and we have the House of Lords behind us.
The report continued—and this is the latest I have heard of the counties' views—
It was resolved that there should be an attempt to seek to divert a clash between the Lords and the Commons on the issue by proposing a compromise amendment when the Bill comes back to the Lords. This would accept that there should be a review of local government in Wales.

Mr. Anderson: To be fair to the leader of the West Glamorgan county council, it should be pointed out that if my right hon. and learned Friend looks through all Mr. Allison's pronouncements on the issue of devolution and local government reform that is likely to be the only crumb of comfort that he will find from that source in terms of any of his proposals.

Mr. Morris: I am sure that my hon. Friend was listening with his usual care. I was dealing with the point that some local government leaders in Wales were becoming aware, late in the day, of the danger that they were being identified with the House of Lords, which has not bent over backwards in support of the Bill.
7.30 p.m.
If the issue is whether or not the counties would concur with the idea of the necessity for a review, the last news that I have had, according to the report, is that it was resolved that there should be a compromise. They accepted that there should be a review of local government in Wales, but said that it should be carried out by an independent commission, which would report directly to the Secretary of State for Wales, so bypassing the Assembly. I hope that that disposes of any concern that there may be on the question whether there is an acceptance by the counties of a review such as I have indicated.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I have had a letter from the county councils saying that they support the Lords in their decision. That is the latest letter that I have received. A number of my colleagues have had similar letters in the last day or two.

Mr. Morris: I am not aware of that letter, or whether it is from the Welsh Counties Committee.

Mr. Edwards: Yes.

Mr. Morris: I have only the report—it has not been challenged—from the Western Mail of 24th June. I was not purporting to advance it as part of my case; I was merely using it to deal with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). I would rest my case on this fact alone, that I am confident that there is a significant demand in Wales—certainly from the districts from many communities, from the trade unions and from the Labour Party—for a review of local government. I leave the counties to one side. I do not depend on whatever views they may be sending to hon. Members, or on whatever reports may appear in the Western Mail; I rely upon the whole of the evidence that I have received in the course of my perambulations through Wales.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was satisfied that there was a significant demand for a review of local government. I accept that from him. Is he saying that there is a significant demand in Wales that that review should be undertaken by the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Morris: I shall come to the method in a moment. First, I hope that no hon. Member will suggest that there is no demand whatever, or that there is no concern about the present system of local government in Wales. It is right to start on common ground. The challenge might well be in relation to the degree of demand, where it comes from—whether it comes from districts or from counties. It is right to see whether, in an ordinary discussion of this kind, we can establish a consensus on this point.

Mr. Ian Gow: rose—

Mr. Morris: I have given way a great deal. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman knows a great deal about the problems of the Principality. Perhaps he will make his point during the debate.
I come to the question: who should conduct the review? I would be the first to concede that there is no unanimity on that score. There never could be. If we had to face our betters, I am sure that we would like to choose our judges. There are some whom we would perhaps accept as more on our side and some who

would be more on the side of others. There are some whose track records we would know. From his long experience, the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) knows that in some cases it would be more favourable to be tried by certain members of the judiciary than by others. I am not sure whether, in the event, a great deal would turn on the decision, but we all know that accidents of this kind weigh a great deal with one. Therefore, I do not expect unanimity on this score.
What I do ask the House to consider is this: in clause 12, as originally proposed, we have laid down that the Welsh Assembly shall do two things. It is right for the House to consider the responsibility which we seek to lay upon the Assembly. First, it shall review the structure of local government in Wales and, secondly, report its conclusions to the Secretary of State. Therefore, if we succeed in persuading the House to accept our original proposals, it is laid down as a duty upon the Welsh Assembly to carry out the review and to report its conclusions. I accept immediately, although there would be no unanimity on this score, that the Assembly would be a very suitable body to carry out the review. I do so having in mind the other mechanisms that have been tried in the past.
I have said that there is dissatisfaction with the present structure. Indeed, I would say that there is dissatisfaction to such a degree that one cannot blind oneself to its intensity. But the track record of the mechanisms that have been tried in the past has not been very successful. I suppose that one could try a Royal Commission or a similar body, but there is no monopoly of wisdom in that type of body which would ensure that it devised a scheme for Wales which was both acceptable and workable. One could try a committee of civil servants, or civil servants mixed with members of local eovernment, and reporting to Ministers.
If one accepts my argument, one must accept that the last system of local government devised in Wales was not a very successful one. Indeed, a Royal Commission would take a very long time. Having failed in the past, with all the other mechanisms, to devise both an acceptable and efficient way of running local government in Wales, I believe that for a change


we should try democracy. We have nothing to fear from trying a democratic solution of laying the responsibility on the shoulders of a democratically elected Assembly rather than relying upon one Minister to take a decision, make a proposal to his colleagues and hope that it turns out all right on the night. That has not occurred in the past, nor is it occurring at present. Therefore, I believe that we should try democracy.
I do not believe that we have anything to fear. I believe that people from all over Wales who are elected to a body of this kind and who are aware of the conditions right across Wales will have a better chance of devising a system that will be both acceptable and efficient. Certainly they have a much higher chance of success than have all the other mechanisms which have been tried in the past.
The Assembly has a major interest in ensuring that it succeeds. If my proposal is accepted, I am sure that every hon. Member would wish it well in its attempt. I do not think that any hon. Member who is concerned at having the best system of local government in Wales would not want the Assembly to succeed. The Assembly has a very big interest indeed in succeeding, because it will be taking over from Ministers the main supervisory responsibilities relating to Welsh local government. Secondly, the Assembly will work closely with local authorities in all their main areas of activity. Thirdly, it will be responsible for paying the rate support grant and for supervising its capital expenditure.

Mr. Kinnock: The Secretary of State talks of the need for success. Of course, if we have an Assembly we all want it to be a success. But how will that success be measured? Will it be measured in terms of the Secretary of State's acceptance of the Assembly's submissions? Will it he measured in terms of the degree of success with which the Secretary of State gets those submissions through this House? What happens if there is a Secretary of State who is not disposed to accept the will of the Welsh Assembly? In those circumstances how can its success be measured?

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) has been a long time in politics. The test of the

Assembly's success will be whether the people of Wales accept that it is efficient and working—

Mr. Kinnock: Can it take decisions?

Mr. Morris: No, but that is not the question that my hon. Friend asked. He must not be too clever. I shall come to that point later. I was glad to hear his endorsement that if we have the Assembly it is essential that we wish it well in its plan to work out a successful system. Because the Assembly has an interest in having a successful mechanism, it will want to satisfy itself that the system it devises is sound, efficient and economical and provides a good basis for a future working relationship.
There will be people from all over Wales on the Assembly—no doubt many with experience in county councils, district councils and community councils. The Assembly will be well placed, as a body of men and women drawn from all parts of Wales and democratically elected, to produce a plan which meets the criteria of being workable and acceptable. It will consult the local government associations, the unions and other interests.

Sir Raymond Gower: The Secretary of State is stressing the fact that these people on the Assembly will benefit from the advice of elected people. When we legislate in this House we do not seek the advice of elected people. We seek the advice of experts. It is rather different to seek advice of elected people who may or may not be experts.

Mr. Morris: This House is elected, and as such is on a par with the Assembly. I spend a great deal of my time in consultation with so-called experts, and also with elected people. I talk to many local government representatives. I would find it a very strange view that there should be no consultations with elected people.
Fears have been expressed that the Assembly may abolish the county councils or district councils or attempt to expand its powers at the expense of local government. How can it? I am glad to hear the echoing voice of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty. How can it? The Assembly is a reviewing


body. It is there to advise the Government. The Government will then consider its recommendations, and it is up to us to carry out any further consultation. But the actual power of decision is for Parliament. Only Parliament can legislate. The test of acceptability is the test of the people of Wales, but the test of decision-making is the Parliament.
7.45 p.m.
As legislative powers remain with Parliament I cannot understand how hon. Members can have fears that the Welsh Assembly will abolish the county councils, the district councils or expand its powers at the expense of local government. It can only review and recommend—no more. It is for Parliament to take decisions and to legislate.

Mr. Hooson: The Secretary of State must be aware that there has been the grossest misrepresentation of the Assembly's powers in this respect. This has occurred in the newspapers and a broadcast on BBC Wales said quite baldly that the Assembly has the right to change local government in Wales. It has no such power, and it is important that the Secretary of State should make it very clear that its power is one of review.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I am sorry that such misconceptions are shouted around Wales from time to time. I have sought to remove some of them.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: rose—

Mr. Morris: No, I shall not give way. Time is getting short, and I must bring my remarks to a close.
The statutory provision is to review and to report. That is clear. If the House did not accept my views, the powers would still be there for the Assembly to review, either at the request of the Secretary of State or on its own initiative. But it is important to restore clause 12 to make the intentions clear. Therefore, my recommendation to the House is that we should disagree with the amendment from the other place.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: That was a remarkable speech. It was the first time I have heard the Secretary of State for Wales rely on a report in the Western

Mail to discover the views of local authorities in Wales. He boasted of his close contacts with the Welsh people. Can this be true, when he turns to the Western Mail to discover the opinion of the Welsh counties? That is a most disturbing revelation.
The Secretary of State made two points. He emphasised that the clause laid down the duty of the Assembly to carry out the review. It is curious that on every other topic Ministers have made the point that it would be insulting to the Welsh people and to the Assembly to tell them what to do. A possibility that we might consider is that the Assembly could reach a conclusion that what was needed was stability and a period in which local government could settle down. That might be its conclusion, but it has a duty imposed upon it by the Bill to stir up the pot.
Then we had the assertion that we were only considering a power of review. We were asked how the Assembly could take powers, and how it could abolish, but that begs the question. If one imposes a duty on the Assembly to make recommendations, what is the Secretary of State to do when those recommendations are made? He will be in a most difficult position politically if he throws them out of the window and, on this first major topic, ignores the recommendations of the Assembly.
If the recommendation tried to do away with the county councils and the Assembly said that an inevitable consequence would be that certain powers in strategic matters, such as education, might have to be transferred upwards because the new local authorities that were proposed would otherwise be too small, the Secretary of State would have little alternative but to accept that recommendation, too—or he would have to accept all the blame and consequences if the system did not work.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) posed an interesting question in our debate on 7th March. He asked why the clause dealing with local government reform had suddenly crept into the Bill after the defeat of its predecessor. I believe that the clause was introduced, not because of any profound conviction that it was necessary, good, desirable or, as the Secretary of State suggested, urgent, but simply because it was seen as a cheap


way to buy votes. It is an attempt to buy popularity for an unpopular Bill by attacking something else believed to be unpopular. In my view, it is a particularly nasty act of deception. It rests on the unfounded assumption that a new upheaval will remove the causes of discontent and lead us inevitably to the hoped-for millennium.
The truth is that local government reform is something that one probably must undertake every 70 or 80 years. Whoever undertakes the task will be told that he has it all wrong. Whatever pattern is adopted will be criticised. I certainly criticised details in the proposals put forward by the previous Government, and indeed I voted against some of them, but I never questioned the need for major reform of local government, and I said so. at the time.
The truth is that there is no right and perfect solution. If the scheme had been very different the results, in terms of public opinion, would have been much the same, and the criticism just as vociferous. That they have been particularly pungent this time is inevitable in an era of high inflation, economic difficulty and substantial change in other respects. The proper approach is not a further upheaval but modification here and there in the light of experience.
Since the war a whole series of alternative plans has been advanced, by all parties, including the Labour Party. The proposals advanced by the Labour Party just before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) put forward the Conservative Government's scheme were in all major respects, except in the organisation of Glamorgan, almost identical with the scheme later introduced by the Conservative Government.

Mr. Roy Hughes: May I let the hon. Gentleman into a little secret history about the plan of the Labour Government before they went out of office? The local government plan then drawn up by the Secretary of State did not have the support of one Welsh Labour Back Bencher.

Mr. Edwards: It certainly did not have the support of Labour Members of Parliament when they thought that it would be useful to have a stick with which to

beat the Government of the day. They quickly decided to abandon the plan which they had previously advanced to the Welsh people, and they argued the matter pungently. Indeed, they came to my constituency and argued the matter there. As soon as an almost identical scheme was introduced by the Government of the day, they reversed their position and attacked it.
I have never hesitated to tell the people in my constituency, who dislike the pattern for the area, what I tell the House now. I believe that a further major upheaval would be madness, costly and unproductive, and would almost certainly take government further from the people and leave most people's discontent unplacated. That was the view of the Labour Government, expressed in the White Paper on England, when it said:
A further reorganisation so soon after the last one would be bound to create confusion in the mind of the average elector. It is also probable that he would feel more remote from the affairs of a local government body administering services over a much wider area as would certainly be the case with regional authorities.
It was the view put equally firmly by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), the former Prime Minister, who went to Cardiff to deliver a speech on the subject in January 1976, when he said:
To impose yet another reorganisation would be a burden not easily to be tolerated. We will not throw the whole of local government again into the melting-pot".
That was the declaration in Cardiff by the Prime Minister of the day.
The introduction of this clause was an act of irresponsibility. What matter the long-term trouble that one causes so long as one wins the immediate political objective? That seems to be the Government's approach.
Let us consider how the position appears to those who have to manage local government. As my hon. Friends the Members for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) reminded us in our last debate on this subject, we have been considering this question almost since the war. No wonder the Welsh counties beg for mercy. They summarise their conclusions on the matter in this way
Local government shout dbe allowed to get on with its job. An efficient organisation cannot possibly waste so much time and


money in repeatedly considering reorganisation. For thirty years, more or less the entire post-war period, there has been talk of local government reorganisation. Not even steel or any industry, let alone Government, has been so afflicted.
What is now promised is a further period of prolonged uncertainty.
The right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) said in the previous debate on this subject that it would be at least four years before we could see legislation. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, speaking for the Liberals in another place, said that the review should not happen straight away and common sense in Wales would not allow it to happen for several years—and for what? His Liberal colleague in this place, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who has now left the Chamber, told us on 7th March that he did not think that there would be any great changes anyway. Those which he then proceeded to describe could be carried out quickly and without fuss by this Government or their successor without inflicting any uncertainty at all. I said that it was an irresponsible proposal.
As the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) pointed out in our last debate, the Assembly will in a literal sense be an irresponsible body if it is given a chance to carry out this proposal. It will be irresponsible because at the end of the day it will not be responsible for fulfilling its own plans or for carrying them into law and accepting blame or credit for the results. It will have all the joy of riding its own hobby-horses, but this Parliament will be faced with the burden of rejecting proposals if they appear bad. If that happens, this Parliament will be castigated for flouting the wishes of the Welsh Assembly or of carrying them into law, in which case no doubt it will be blamed for any shortcomings that occur. We have "had it" either way.
In that situation it would be interesting to observe the conflicts that would arise if the elected Welsh Members of Parliament, who also travel widely in Wales and who also are democratically elected and know about Welsh opinion, were to form a quite different conclusion on the matter from the Assembly. That is by no means impossible. What would the Government do then? Would

they proceed on the basis of the Assembly's proposals, against the expressed desire of elected Welsh Members?
8 p.m.
Certainly, Assemblymen will have to be remarkably restrained if they are to view the issue with total detachment. Working within the system of subject committees proposed in the Bill, they will have a continuing powerful interest in the details of policy that affect their areas on matters such as education, housing and health. It will be perfectly understandable and not a matter for criticism if they seek to extend their influence and power at the expense of those whom they will view as subordinates. They will naturally think that their opinions are right, and they will seek to give the Government the benefit of their wisdom.
Local authorities are already to have the Assembly imposed upon them as an extra tier between central and local government in the negotiations of local government finance and distribution. Local government is caught in a two pronged attack. On the one hand, it will be relieved of responsibility for its own finance. It is regrettable that we are unlikely to have the opportunity to debate Lords amendment no. 56 on the rate support grant, but I hope that the House will vote to ensure that the amount of grant for Wales must be clearly and separately identified. On the other hand, local councils will find their very existence under threat from a directly interested body which may well be tempted to enlarge itself at the expense of real local democracy. The existence of county councils will be threatened. All the critics say that these councils are too large, and no one challenges that contention, but it is equally true that most district councils will be wiped out on the ground that they are too small.
The proposal that we hear most frequently is for 20 or 25 all-purpose authorities. Almost everyone agrees that if we are to have such authorities, some functions will have to go upwards to the Assembly. That point is made in the Government's White Paper, which says that
Many functions of the counties would therefore need to be raised to the new regional authorities and others would be transferred


to the districts. This would require a substantial reorganisation of the district authorities, most of which would have to be enlarged in order to handle their new responsibilities.
The document of the Labour Party in Wales on local government reform confirms this judgment. It says that
In view of the relatively small size of some of the multi-purpose authorities, it would also prove necessary for some expert and specialist staff to be employed on a basis wider than a single authority—this could either be done through the Assembly or by joint action between a number of loca lauthorities.
At each level, local government would be taken further from the people. Functions in respect of such matters as housing and local planning would go from the existing districts to bigger, more remote all-purpose authorities, and responsibility for such matters as education would go from the county councils to Cardiff.
Without causing alarm on the one hand and raising false expectation on the other, we should be streamlining and doing away with some of the overlaps and confusions that exist in the present arrangements, and getting the interfering busybodies in Cardiff off the backs of local government. Let local government get on and do its job. I could produce dozens of examples of the way in which the Welsh Office insists on taking decisions that would be much better taken by the local authorities who know local conditions. For example, I had a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales only a day or two ago about conditions on the roads in Fishguard. We are to have a great local inquiry into what happens to traffic in Fishguard. Any local councillor could tell the Welsh Office tomorrow exactly what the situation is in Fishguard.
My constituents do not care much whether the busybodies sit in the Welsh Office or in the Coal Exchange. They just want their local representatives to be left alone to run their own affairs in their own way.
The clause that their Lordships wisely removed, far from strengthening local democracy, is likely to weaken it. Perhaps the Welsh people will vote for that in the referendum. They will be free to do so, and we must accept what they say, but they should clearly understand what is being proposed and it should be made quite clear what the possibilities are

before that decision is taken. I believe that as the original proposals in the Bill would take government further from the people instead of closer to them, we should support their Lordships, and I urge the House to reject the Government's proposal that the review clause should be reinstated in the Bill.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Unlike the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), I am as concerned as is my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that clause 12, which was deleted by their Lordships, should be reinserted in the Bill. It is the kernel of the devolution proposals and is one of the basic reasons that I support the creation of a Welsh Assembly.
The tragedy of the Government's proposals is that the Assembly should have been established alongside the reorganisation of local government, which was long overdue. Instead of doing that, the last Conservative Government went ahead with the reorganisation of local government, which was a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, though I agree that they have derived a considerable amount of political advantage from it, particularly because of the gerrymandering of boundaries that took place at that time.
However, the Labour Government between 1964 and 1970 bear a measure of responsibility for not carrying out local government reorganisation in Wales. A good set of proposals was laid out in the 1967 White Paper which should have been implemented. It would have met our needs.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: This is the point that I was making. Those proposals, certainly as they affected my part of Wales, were almost identical with the scheme that was implemented by the last Conservative Government, yet I am told that that was a mad, lunatic scheme. The hon. Gentleman now says that those proposals should have been implemented in full.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member was not in the House at that time so he may not be too conversant with the proposals. Those made in 1967 were markedly different from the proposals put forward in 1969. As I pointed out in an intervention during the hon. Gentleman's


speech, the later proposals did not have the support of a single Back-Bench Labour Member.

Mr. Peter Thomas: The 1967 proposals were brought forward by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). Does the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) agree that, in the main, the proposals that I put forward shortly after 1970 coincided with the 1967 proposals to a great extent, particularly in places such as north Wales and areas outside Glamorgan?

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's proposals certainly did not coincide with the 1967 proposals in my part of Wales. In south-east Wales, where more than 70 per cent. of the people of Wales live, there were marked differences, including the big fiddle over the creation of South Glamorgan.
I regard clause 12 as a belated attempt to try to rectify what has gone before. I support its reinclusion but I consider that it does not go far enough. In Committee I tabled an amendment that, if accepted, would have had the effect of the Assembly drawing up proposals for the reorganisation of local government. Those proposals would have been based on the one-tier system of local government. My amendment was not reached because of the time factor.
I have had some experience of local government. I have served on one of the largest authorities. It is evident that the whole structure of local government needs simplyfying. The creation of an Assembly will enable that to be done. I can understand why some local government dignitaries are vociferous in their opposition to the creation of an Assembly. It may be that they can see the writing on the wall. However, vested interests must not he allowed to prevail in the great debate. It is the public good and the interests of the people that must be given first consideration by the House.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that it must be borne in mind that the Welsh Assembly may be regarded as being a vested interest in removing the tiers of government below it, as are the sections of local government that wish

to continue in existence? We shall not have an objective analysis from the Assembly. That will not be so when the only justification for its existence is the removal of the tiers of local government below it.

Mr. Hughes: I shall advance my argument for the simplification of the local government structure.
The reorganisation was carried out by the Heath Conservative Government. In Wales it was a disaster. I know that many hon. Members, including some on the Opposition Benches, will vouch for the fact that it was a disaster in many areas of England. I speak purely in a Welsh context when I say that many local identities were destroyed by the reorganisation. Many key units of organisation were undermined and mutilated.
The Glamorgan County Council was split into three parts. An argument could have been advanced for dividing Glamorgan into two. The House will have heard my response to the intervention of the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), a former Secretary of State for Wales. I regarded the creation of the third Glamorgan authority, South Glamorgan, as an attempt to make Cardiff, the capital city of Wales, Tory for ever.
We had a county borough system in Wales. There were four county boroughs. A case could have been made for reducing the status of Merthyr, but there was nothing wrong to any marked extent with the county boroughs of Cardiff, Swansea or Newport. The boroughs should have been retained.
8.15 p.m.
I know that my constituents in Newport have paid heavily for the reorganisation of local government. Incidentally, they are receiving an inferior service. That is being revealed to me day after day in my parliamentary activities. Only today I have written to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the roads in Newport. Despite all the problems that we have in the town, there is not one road scheme for Newport on the drawing board. That would not have been allowed to happen if Newport still had county borough status. The loss of status is one of the


basic reasons for Newport being neglected. We need a further reorganisation of local government.
In contradiction to the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Pembroke, I believe that the Welsh Assembly would be an ideal body to carry out a reorganisation. Many of those elected to the Assembly will have vast experience of local government. They will not be what might be called London-Welsh representatives. Their knowledge of local government will be beneficial to the people of Wales.
What happened to manpower as a result of reorganisation? Manpower is a basic but expensive commodity. We know that thousands more were recruited into local government. There were many upgradings. For example, letting officers became housing managers. Salaries rocketed and ratepayers and taxpayers paid heavily for the privilege.
As the Secretary of State has already said, there is now a duplication of functions. My right hon. and learned Friend was right to mention planning departments. The staff in those departments are essentially technical people. Many of them should be working in industry to bring about the regeneration of our manufacturing industry that is so necessary if we are to survive and compete in world markets.
Local government reorganisation fueled the flames of inflation from which we are still suffering and which the Government have fought so resolutely to combat in the past four years. Those in the party and the Government who carried out the reorganisation—namely, those in and supporting the Conservative Government—now have the audacity to call for cuts in public expenditure.
It is vital that clause 12 is restored to the Bill. The first task of an elected Assembly should be to draw up plans for the reorganisaion of local government. I am confident that the proposals that the Assembly draws up will be based on the one-tier system. Incidentally, that is already the official policy of the Labour Party.
There is a great need to thin out the bureaucracy and to bring local government back to the people It must be remembered that all Labour hon. Members opposed the system of local govern-

ment that is now in operation when it was being taken through the House by the Conservative Government. Even the hon. Member for Pembroke has admitted that he opposed the proposals for his own area. I hope that my hon. Friends will be equally united in asking for the re-inclusion of clause 12.

Mr. Ian Grist: We heard an extraordinary speech from the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Evans). He said that the last reorganisation of local government fuelled the flames of inflation. Yet he called for another reorganisation. He is advocating a strange form of fire-fighting.
The hon. Gentleman looked back to previous efforts at local government reform in Wales. He rejected one in 1969 by the Labour Government. However, he liked the 1967 model because that kept Newport in being as an entity. If I remember rightly, at that time the huge Bettws estate, which served the steelworks, lay outside the bounds of Newport Corporation. It fell within the constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who managed to lose the seat in 1966 to the now hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). By the time of the 1970 election it had been taken back into the county borough of Newport. Newport was flooding out of its boundaries. It was already out of date as a unitary authority.
The hon. Member for Newport knows full well that if the Labour Party's proposals were reproduced by a Welsh Assembly, the old Newport would not be re-created. It would be much bigger and very different from the Newport to which he longingly looks back.
The hon. Member for Newport said that reorganisation of local government was one of the principal reasons for his support of the establishment of the Welsh Assembly. Listening to the Secretary of State, one would think that it was the reason for supporting the establishment of a Welsh Assembly. That was the goody. The smile and the smirk were there. That was the promise that was to be handed out to the people of Flint, Pembroke, Cardiff, Mid-Glamorgan, or wherever it may be. Because people blame local government for their problems, the Secretary of State is saying "We shall deliver you from it, but through the Welsh Assembly. Of course.


we in the Labour Party know the answer because we have our own policy."
The Secretary of State said that the Government have a policy for single-tier unitary authorities. Why is that policy not brought before the House fearlessly now? Is it necessary to skulk behind the establishment of a Welsh Assembly before daring to brave the row that he knows meets every Government who want to reform local government?
The Secretary of State is in fact saying "We know what is wrong. We have the answer. But, my goodness me, I shall not make the mistake of my predecessor, soil my hands and end up on these Benches being assailed for having got it all wrong. I shall have 80 good men and true. They will be the fall guys for me. I shall come to the House of Commons and say These people are in contact with the feelings of the people of Wales, unlike me and my fellow Members of Parliament, many of whom do not live or pay rates in Wales.'" They are, as the hon. Member for Newport said, London Members who sit for Wales That was a revealing phrase.
The Secretary of State will say "We, as Members of Parliament, are clearly out of touch with our neighbours and our own local authorities. We are coming to the House with the recommendations of these 80 Local Welsh people. They say that this this and this should be done to local government in Wales. Of course, we shall agree with them. How could we do otherwise? Here is the national body of Wales speaking for Wales."
We are told time and again by the Secretary of State, by the Prime Minister on occasions and certainly by the Leader of the House that these people will be able to speak for Wales in a way that Members of Parliament cannot hope to do Therefore, what can we do but accept their recommendations? Of course the Government could refuse to accept those recommendations. But that would be the first job that the Welsh Assembly had been given.
When bodies are first set up they take a little time to settle down and find their feet. Therefore, what would be easier for the Welsh Assembly to get on with than reviewing and messing up local government? As has been pointed out, many Members of the Assembly are likely to

be experienced in local government. Therefore, that is one subject about which they will know something. They will approach it with all their prejudices and local loyalties. They will come with all that they have learned in their committees and local caucuses, over many years in some cases, so they will feel very much at home in reviewing local government. They will do it thoroughly and quickly. Therefore, it will be a very brave Secretary of State who will say "I am sorry. It may have been imposed on you, but it was your job. You may have given all your attention and expertise to it, but we do not like it and we shall not pass it at Westminster." That could happen.
As has been pointed out, there could be a Labour-dominated Welsh Assembly and, rightly, a Conservative Government. Is it probable that the Conservative Government would pass what might well be a Labour-inspired policy from a Welsh Assembly? If the Conservative Government refused to accept it, would it not demonstrate one of the obvious cracks in the structure of our constitution that we have warned about throughout our debates on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill? It would be ruinous for local government in Wales and for the interests of the Welsh people and, in the long term, of the people of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: Perhaps I may put a further refinement on that proposition. If there were a Conservative Government in Downing Street, a Labour Assembly at the Coal Exchange and a Conservative-dominated South Glamorgan council—that is, a three-tier sandwich—what would happen then?

Mr. Grist: I should not mind particularly in some respects, because that is my county. The hon. Gentleman has posed one of the problems that is bound to arise. It is not fantastical; it is quite probable. That is why people are being flummoxed and smokescreened. This clause is the major smokescreen in the entire debate. Otherwise, I cannot conceive why the Secretary of State should have been so gleeful in moving the amendment.

Mr. Ioan Evans: It is interesting how the argument about local government appears to have changed during our consideration of the Bill. The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) referred


to a question that I asked at an early stage. I felt that if an Assembly were to be created in Wales, it would inevitably lead to an alteration of the local government structure. At that time I was told that local government would in no way be affected. Indeed, reference was made to the White Paper "Our Changing Democracy" which, on page 47, states:
The devolution Act will make no change in the structure of local government in Wales.
I believe that, as night follows day, if the people of Wales decide to have an Assembly, the existing local government structure will be scrapped.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He brought forward proposals for reorganisation in Wales which, to a large extent, had been discussed by the Labour Party. The difficulty was that he looked at the proposals submitted to Kilbrandon by the Labour Party. In the meantime, the Conservative Government came in and reorganised local government. The original Assembly proposals do not take account of the local government reorganisation that has taken place.
When I supported what was called an elected Council for Wales, I understood that would be a council for the whole of Wales with a single-tier authority underneath. That would make some sense. But the Conservative Government jumped the gun. The Kilbrandon Commission considered devolution and local government.
It could be said that there is dissatisfaction with local government. But I have a first-class county council in Mid-Glamorgan. Perhaps South Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan should have been combined, but Mid-Glamorgan has settled down. It is providing effective local government for that area.
8.30 p.m.
Local Government reorganisation meant the the two urban district authorities in my locality were merged. It is a traumatic experience for people suddenly to find that their council offices have moved up the valley. People do not like such changes.
I can imagine why the Government decided that they did not want to touch local government reorganisation with a bargepole. I can understand why they

decided that the Assembly should deal with that reorganisation. But that underlines the weaknesses of the proposals.
Of course, people say that they do not want an extension of bureaucracy. But in Wales, under the present government structure, there are community councils, 37 district councils, county councils, the Welsh Office and the Secretary of Slate. For 3 million people that is not too bad when one considers that London, with 9 million people, has only the Greater London Council and the boroughs. We have a great deal of government in Wales. We are leaving local government alone but on top of that we are creating an Assembly. It could be said that we are not diminishing bureaucracy but increasing it.
It could be said that the nominated bodies might go. But that is not so, because they will remain. We should tackle the problem of quangos. As a party we must address ourselves to that problem. The danger is that the Assembly might create a "quangoloo" court. The nominated bodies will not disappear when the Assembly is created. They will continue. The only difference will be that instead of the Secretary of State being in charge, the Assembly will determine such matters.
I understand the Government's difficulties. But it is no use their coming to the House and saying that there is dissatisfaction with local government when, on top of that structure and without altering it, they are creating an additional tier of government for Wales.
I have been critical of the way in which the Conservatives reorganised local government, the health service and the water industry. The people of Wales have gone through one traumatic experience of local government reorganisation. Are they to face another so soon? The Government have said that they should not. Speaking at a local government conference in Cardiff a former Prime Minister said that we cannot tackle the problem of another local government reorganisation at this stage. But now we are planning to give to the Assembly the task of urgently reviewing local government.
What if the people of Wales decide that they do not want an Assembly? What are we to do if there is no Assembly? But let us suppose that the people,


unwisely, decide that they want an Assembly. What is to happen to the Secretary of State in the Cabinet? What effect will he have in the Welsh Office and on our role as Members of Parliament? Shall we be able to talk about housing, health and welfare when those matters are devolved? What will happen to the number of Welsh Members? When there was a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland, the number of MPs from the Province was small.
If we accept, academically, that there will be an Assembly, we do not know its political complexion. A coalition may form a majority. I do not agree that it will inevitably be a Labour majority. If, as I believe, a Labour Government are elected in a General Election, there may be a boomerang effect and the people may vote for other parties in the Assembly, as they do in local government.
We do not know whether the Assemblymen will have local government experience. The Secretary of State said that they may come from the counties and the districts, but we do not know. Although improbable, it is possible that none will have such experience. It is dangerous to give them this task. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, there are vested interests in district councils and county councils and in this House—and so there will be in the Assembly.
In the long term, the Assembly will make sense only if a tier of local government is removed. The tragedy is that proposals which grasped the nettle and created an elected authority for Wales with a unitary authority below it would have been sensible.
What will happen to the county councils? I understand that the eight county councils of Wales are opposed to the Assembly reviewing the function of local government. I have had a letter from the Association of County Councils saying that it supports the Lords amendment and wants to delete
…the objectionable clause which would have required the Assembly to review the local government structure in Wales. This open invitation to the Assembly to initiate a further reorganisation of local government so soon after the reorganisation in 1974 is utterly opposed by the Association. As you know, the clause was approved by a very small

majority in the House of Lords and it is the hope of the Association that on reconsideration the Government will now accept the position, or alternatively that the Commons will reject
the clause. It was defeated in the Commons by a small majority—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Of seven.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend reminds me that it was seven. In the Lords, it was carried by a small majority. We should put at rest the minds of Labour county leaders in Wales, who are a little apprehensive at the prospect of being associated with the other place, by deleting the clause ourselves.
The idea of the Assembly reviewing local government is wrong. This will be a long process. The Secretary of State should set up a commission to look into local government in Wales, rather than giving that onerous task to the Assembly, one of whose main functions early on will be to work with the district and county councils. Imagine what the relationship will be if they know that this body will have that task. If we are to have an Assembly, it should not perform this difficult task. We should give the Labour leaders of county councils, who do not want this proposal, the support they require.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): This is most unusual in a debate that is subject to the guillotine. Three hon. Members are still waiting to get into the debate. There is to be a five-minute winding-up speech. There are 15 minutes left for other hon. Members. May we please have three five-minute speeches?

Mr. Michael Roberts: I think that tonight we saw the Secretary of State in a new light. He was all soft, sweet and reasonable. We are not used to that, and it is bound to make us somewhat suspicious.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman started by telling us that there was a basis on which we could all agree. There was, he said, a significant demand for a review and reform of local government. I suppose that he relies for that view on the strident opinions of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes). The Secretary of State went on to say that what we


seek is a consensus, but he based his argument on a completely false premise. He proposed the equation that dissatisfaction equals demand for review. It means nothing of the sort, because there has always been dissatisfaction with local government in Wales.
There was dissatisfaction with the old Glamorgan county council. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that as well as anyone else does, coming as he does from Port Talbot. He must know that there was no love for local government in South Wales, and that there was no respect for it in Monmouth or Glamorgan. Indeed, it was thought by most people that "jobs for the boys" was one of the major considerations of those large authorities. But because there is dissatisfaction—there always has been —that does not mean that people want to change. I believe that the Secretary of State is putting forward an argument that he cannot, with honesty, sustain, and because I have only a couple of minutes in which to speak I shall put to him just one reason why there should not be a change of local government—one reason why we should not jump on any band wagon of dissatisfaction because, at a time of inflation, rates have increased.
One reason why staffs in local authorities were increased to deal with housing, for example, was that this Government urged local authorities to undertake a great housing expansion, but they then pulled the rug from under the feet of the authorities. "Bust the bank" was the argument used at the time. I am going back a few years. The local authorities were told to bust the bank and go on with expansion, but then they were told to cut back, after they appointed architects, and so on. "Bust the bank" was the phrase that Labour Members should know was used three years ago.
Anyone who knows anything about the development of social services and a social service department, or an education department, in local government knows that it is a relationship that takes years to develop. The social services department of South Glamorgan is first-class. It has been developed slowly and efficiently by dedicated professional members of the staff. What has happened has had nothing to do with the political complexion of the authority.
It is the same with education. It takes years to establish a relationship between the authority, the people and the parents. Such a relationship has been developing for the past four years, yet here we are, cynically seeking a justification for an Assembly. For the sake of a few votes we seem prepared to jeopardise the interests of the parents and the children. We seem prepared to do that just to make a political point.

Mr. Anderson: There are clear weaknesses in the present local government structure in planning and in the interface between housing and social services. All our colleagues have heard of buck-passing exercises between county and district authorities. But we have to recognise that, given the topography of Wales and given our democratic structure, there is no simple solution that will fit local government all over Wales. There are the heavily congested parts of South Wales, and there are areas of low population in Mid-Wales, and, particularly in Powys, if there were to be a unitary system there would have to be groupings of authorities to cover the wider strategic front functions. There is no simple and easy structure, and the dissatisfaction that exists against the present structure may well exist against any alternative structure which might be proposed for Wales.
8.45 p.m.
If there is a degree of dissatisfaction, and if one concedes for a moment that it is worth considering whether that structure should be altered, either root and branch or by some form of organic change, is an Assembly the right body to do it? What expertise should there necessarily be in that Assembly? We do not know. Why, therefore, assign this task to a body, of the expertise, if any, of which we are unaware? Can we expect an objective appraisal of the needs of Wales from the Assembly? We do not know, but it is most likely that the Assembly will seek to secure additional powers for itself on a strategic level.
Is it likely that the Assembly will seek to decentralise to the maximum possible extent to local communities? Again, the reply to that question must be that it is doubtful. Why are the Government now proposing to include clause 12 in the Bill? As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said fairly, it was


not in the original Bill. The White Paper said that there would be no effect on local government reorganisation. If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) said, local government reorganisation is the kernel of the whole debate on devolution, why was this kernel not included from the start?
If this matter is so urgent, as we are told, why was it not suggested before? Why has it taken four years to discover that this great state of urgency exists? Quite clearly this clause is no more and no less than a sweetner in favour of voting "Yes" in the referendum. There is no necessary nexus between local government reform and the Assembly.
Perhaps I may anticipate some of the arguments that my right hon. and learned Friend and some of my hon. Friends will be using in the referendum campaign. They will be going to Pembroke—I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has already been there— and will tell the people there that they had a good local government system in the past, and that they enjoyed the benefits of Pembrokeshire County Council. They will say that they want that sort of county council again, the avenue towards that will be to vote for the Assembly.
My hon. Friends will go to Swansea and will tell my constituents that if they do not like the idea of a new county hall in Swansea the solution lies in voting for the Asembly. That, they will say, will ensure that there is no duplication of government. They will go to Carmarthen and Cardigan and make similar statements.
The clause is unnecessary. It represents the only positive duty that the Government have seen fit to put upon the Assembly. Why should there be a duty? If the Assembly wanted to make local government proposals, it could do so in any event. Why do the Government see the need to impose a duty under clause 12 alone of all the other matters that they might have chosen? This is clearly part of the sweetening process for the referendum campaign. It is an extraneous matter which has been injected into the devolution issue at a late stage. I believe that it should be rejected for that reason, and on this occasion I shall certainly vote against the Government.

Mr. Kinnock: This is a clause which, from its belated conception half-way through our debates on devolution, I have always regarded as the "free offer" clause. The Government have experienced great difficulty in marketing devolution. Just like any other concern which has difficulty in selling an unsaleable product, the Government have thrown in a little bonus, the equivalent of "5p off manufacturers' recommended price", but without the manufacturer ever having said what the price was. At one time, the sale of a particular soap powder was assisted by plastic daffodils. In the context of the Wales Bill, it may be that this clause is the plastic daffodil of the Government's devolution proposals. That is all that it can boil down to.
This evening, we have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that it has all the advantages of mobilising the experience and all the other virtues that we can expect from the would-be Welsh Assemblymen. Then the Assembly will review, and then it will recommend. That it shall have no power other than the power to review and recommend is the reassurance that my right hon. and learned Friend and his associates will offer to the people of Wales as being able to demonstrate that if the demands of this Assembly, democratically elected, should become excessive or eccentric to general Government policy, or, indeed, contravene the interests of the people of Wales, as the Government conceive them to be, then the people of Wales have a further check and balance on this Assembly, so they can have their bread buttered on both sides.
Of course, the major beneficiaries of the whole promotion will be the manufacturers of these devolution proposals, in that they can go to the people of Wales, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) described, and sell the devolution policy on the basis of the fact that it offers an access to recovery from the horrors of local government reorganisation as visited upon us by the previous Conservative Government.
I would not uphold the system of organisation or disorganisation that the Conservatives gave to Wales. There are very substantial areas for change. But I hope that my right hon. and learned


Friend does not think that the mistakes, shortcomings, inefficiencies and excesses of this form of local government reorganisation were visited upon us by any lack of democracy. I think that they are a development of financial constraints and of demographic problems, as they exist in Wales.
No matter who or what form of organisation, review body or analytical mind sets itself to the problem of organising local government in Wales to maximise democratic representation and to maximise efficiency of management, it will come up against much the same problem as any other body ever has.
If it is legitimised by being an elected body which does that, so much the better in some respects. But it does not necessarily mean that it will come up with any more effective or more efficient an answer. It is certainly not enough ground on which to buy the very dubious product of devolution, as proposed by my right hon. Friends.
My right hon. and learned Friend says that people in Wales are labouring under misconceptions. He was supported in that view by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The hon. and learned Member even accused the BBC of sowing fear and mistrust in the minds of the Welsh people by giving the impression that the Welsh Assembly will change local government. He was very critical of the BBC for giving that impression.
However, it is very difficult for people in Wales, including the BBC, to avoid such misconceptions. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, with all the power of conviction that he is capable of bringing to bear on any subject, is giving the impression at successive conferences, of our movement and of everyone else's movement, on shared platforms and single platforms, that, first of all, we would not have had the horror of local government as we have it now if we had had an Assembly in the first place, and secondly, that the only means of uprooting this dread form of local government is by having an Assembly, it is difficult to avoid a misconception.
Then there is the further example of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—all credit to him—as mentioned by my hon. Friend the

Member for Swansea, East, going to Pembroke, for instance, and strongly conveying the idea that the way in which the old Pembrokeshire County Council and the long-remembered and enchanted form that previously existed in that golden age to which the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Mr. Grist) referred, can be restored by will of the Assembly. But of course, nothing like that will happen.
This is the most superficial, wasteful, misleading and misconceived way in which to conduct the whole exercise of local government reorganisation, if that is what the people of Wales actually want. If that review takes place and recommendations are made, we shall have to go through exactly the process in this House that we would have to go through in order to change local government in any case, because the Assembly will not be an independent assembly. As my right hon. Friend is fond of reminding us, it will be a devolved Assembly. Therefore, we shall have to go through precisely the same procedure as that which will have been followed by the Assembly. The most entertaining prospect—at least for those outside Wales, although it frightens me to death —concerns what happens if the recommendations of the Assembly are not accepted by the Secretary of State or Parliament.
I think that it is highly unlikely that, when the Secretary of State eventually telephones or telegraphs or sends by pony express to the Assembly and says "Sorry, boys. Parliament has come to the conclusion that, although your review is praiseworthy, we cannot accept your recommendations", as one man the Assembly will say "That's all right. We don't mind. There has been a democratic review. We have only spent 18 months of our time travelling up and down Wales, looking at all the possibilities; we have only set all the wealth of experience among us at work on this; we have only mobilised all the local government officials in Wales; we have only done a full assessment; we have only written a fat volume on it—the biggest thing since the Mabinogion, and sent it off to London. Now they have turned it down, but we shall not object to that."
Of course the reality will be entirely different, and on top of the waste and duplication, on top of all the misleading


campaigns, on top of all the false promises, on top of all the free offers, on top of all the cut prices, will come the resentment of people who have done an earnest job and whose offer has been rebutted by Parliament and the Secretary of State who are under no obligation to take any notice of what they say.
I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that nobody with the interests of Wales at heart, however critical one is of local government reorganisation, could possibly come to the conclusion that there is anything worthy or worthwhile in putting this clause back into the Bill.

Mr. John Morris: By the leave of the House, I shall seek, in a matter of two minutes, to reply to some of the points raised in the debate. I was attacked for being gleeful, and for being sweet and reasonable. Perhaps I should be more aggressive.
Surely the point is that there is dissatisfaction. There is a quarrel in the House as to the degree of it, but I hope that no one will contend seriously at this time that we should leave the situation as it is without having someone to review it and bring forward proposals that would be both acceptable and more workable.
I believe that, having failed in the past with various mechanisms—failed with commissions, failed with committees of inquiry, failed with Ministers in this House—we should now try democracy. Why not? I have nothing to fear from democracy, from allowing a body elected by the Welsh people to look at the situation and report to this House.
It has ben said that we were late in the day in forming our view. That is not true. It was in our early proposals. Indeed, it was in the Scotland and Wales Bill last Session—and there is power in this Bill, even without this clause, for the Assembly, either on its own initiative or on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, to do this work. The power is there already, but we think it wise and proper to ensure that we place a mandatory duty on the Assembly, making clear beyond peradventure what we regard its duty to be, to report to this House. It will then be for this House to decide what should be done.
The critics of this proposal cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that the power is lost to this House and goes to the Assembly, and that the Assembly can take away this power from a county council, or another power from a district council, when they know full well that the sole power proposed is to report and to review, and for this House then to come to its own conclusion. I believe that the need—

It being Nine o'clock Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 277.

[For Division List No. 290 see c. 731]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.

Clause 15

STANDING ORDERS

Lords amendment: no 26, in page 7, line 18, at end insert—
("(4) The standing orders shall include provision for the publication of a verbatim report of the proceedings of the Assembly as soon as practicable after the day on which they take place.")

Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment: in subsection (4), leave out "verbatim".

In subsection (4), after fourth "the" insert "full".—[Mr. John Smith.]

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 27 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 28 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 17

SUBJECT COMMITTEES

Lords amendment: no. 31, in page 8, line 8, leave out ("section 18") and insert ("sections 18 and 22").

9.15 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we take Lords amendments nos. 32, 35 and 36.

Mr. Jones: Amendments nos. 32, 35 and 36 are consequential, and similarly I hope that the House will disagree with them.
This group of amendments attempts to ensure that there shall be a party balance in the Executive Committee. As it stands at present, the Bill provides that there shall be a party balance, so far as is practicable, in all other statutory committees of the Assembly. In our view, if we were to seek to secure this party balance in the Executive Committee, it would effectively change the whole structure of the Bill. In setting up the committee structure for the Assembly, the Government have kept two principles in mind—the need for wide participation by Members in the work of the Assembly and the need for a flexible and efficient system of working.
Insistence on party balance in the Executive Committee could result in delay, and indecision at best, and could put the entire structure at risk. The Assembly will inherit a wide range of functions. In the Government's view, it is in the interests of efficient administration to require the Assembly to set up subject Committees to embrace these functions. By providing, as we do in clause 22, for these committees to be balanced so as to reflect the political composition of the Assembly so far as practicable, the Bill ensures that all the parties represented in the Assembly can participate in the Assembly's work.
The situation in relation to the Executive Committee is completely different. It will be essential for the Assembly to be reasonably decisive and generally capable of carrying out its responsibilities. This makes it necessary for the majority party in the Assembly, or a combination of interests, if there is no majority, to be responsible and to be seen to be responsible.
The focus of this responsibility will be the Executive Committee, composed mainly of the leaders of the subject com-

mittees. If the strength of will of the Executive Committee is weakened, as it will be if these amendments are carried, there will be very great dangers for the good government of Wales.
If there were to be a party balance on the Executive Committee it could only encourage the majority party or parties to resort to a caucus system of government.
The Bill proposes that the Executive Committee should be made up of the leaders of the subject committees and should include also additional members, up to one-third of the number of those leaders. These extra members could belong to non-majority parties. These are matters for the Assembly itself to determine.

Sir David Renton: Will the Minister tell us the total number of members of the Executive Committee and what proportion of them will therefore be drawn from the leaders of the subject committees?

Mr. Jones: As the right hon. and learned Member knows, the Assembly will be able to set up committees. Until the Assembly decides how many it will set up no one can say how many leaders there will be. It is written into the Bill that the Executive Committee will consist of the leaders, and there is a fixed percentage of additional members—up to one-third, If there are more leaders on the Executive Committee there will be more additional members. These additional members could be drawn from any party, depending on the views of the Assembly itself.
We believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. On the one hand, the subject committees will be responsible for the exercise of powers relating to certain devolved functions and each committee will act as a check on the authority of its leaders. On the other hand, the Executive Committee will have the responsibility for overall strategy and policy as well as co-ordination and resource allocation. It will have the cohesiveness to work out a combined programme.
To impose a requirement for party balance would be a recipe for conflict and indecisiveness in the Executive Committee, and could lead to weak and inefficient government. Therefore, we believe that the Executive Committee


membership should be as laid down in the Bill.

Mr. Leon Brittan: On the face of it, this amendment may seem to be comparatively minor. It is about the structure of the committee system in the Welsh Assembly. But it is very important because it goes to the heart of the whole nature of the scheme of the Assembly, as proposed in the Bill.
If we compare what the Minister has just said with what was said on behalf of the Government in another place, we see that the Government's line has hardened somewhat. Their opposition to the amendment is stronger here than it was elsewhere. I am not suggesting that it was not substantial in another place, but the dire perils that the Minister indicated might flow from support for this amendment were not suggested in such strong terms in another place.
The Government's scheme for devolution in Wales is based on a concept of power-sharing within the Assembly. In making out the case, the Minister failed to give sufficient weight to the fact that that is central to the whole scheme. For that reason I ask my colleagues to take the view that there should be a party balance in all the committees, including the Executive Committee, and not just in the committees other than the Executive Committee.
When we talk of a balance of parties, we are reflecting the language of clause 22, which refers to the obligation to
secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is, so far as practicable, reflected in the membership of the committee.
In our view, the concept of power-sharing as being the basis of the Welsh Assembly requires that that philosophy should be extended to the Executive Committee as well. We are talking of a committee system, and as such it requires the balance of parties to be reflected throughout. We are talking about a system in which the subject committees referred to in the Bill are not just consultative committees or select committees. They are themselves executive bodies exercising substantial power.
Therefore, we have a system in which the committees which are required to have a party balance are given consider-

able power. It is not right to disregard the totality of the power exercised by the subject committees when we talk about firm government and similar matters. If the subject committees with their party balance are incapable of action, the mere fact that the Executive Committee has not a party balance will not enable the Assembly to work in a firm or resolute way.
The working of the Assembly depends totally on the operation of the subject committees. It is the Government who have decided that this Bill should operate quite unlike the Scotland Bill and that there should be subject committees conducted in an operational way and making real decisions. The Government have decided that that is the right way to operate the Assembly in Wales.
It would have been possible for the Government to say "We want a Cabinet system in the Welsh Assembly as in the Scottish Assembly. That system will work in the same way as it does in this House." In that case the whole concept of party balance and committee structures would not be applicable in the same way. We are saying that one cannot have both. One cannot have a mixture of a Cabinet system and a committee system. One either has the one or the other.
If the Government have plumped for the committee system, this must go right the way through to the Executive Committee as well. There are powerful arguments against having a committee structure at all and against having this system of power-sharing, but there are no powerful arguments in favour of basing the whole structure of the Assembly, which is weighted heavily in the subject committees, on power-sharing and then saying "We shall drop it when we come to the top one—to the Executive Committee itself." There seems to be no justification for such an arrangement.
I can appreciate that if the Government had said "The Executive Committee will be different. There will be no minority members in it at all", it might be possible to graft such an Executive Committee on top of the subject committees. Then one could say "Power sharing is to go so far and no further" and when it came to the Executive Committee the pretence could be dropped and it would be a committee that emanated from the


governing party and it would make all the decisions. That might be defensible, although I regard it as curiously incongruous in relation to the basic system of subject committees.
However, this is not what the Government are suggesting. If we examine the provisions of clause 18, we see that it is clearly envisaged that not all the members of the Executive Committee will be from the majority party. It is not expressly set out in clause 18, but we can look at what Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, the Minister in charge of the Bill, said in another place on 21st June 1978. He then made it clear that he envisaged that the Executive Committee would contain people who were members of the other party. Lord Donaldson said:
Turning now to the Executive Committee, the Bill provides in Clause 18 that it shall be composed of the leaders of the subject committees and may include additional members up to one-third of the number of those leaders. So far as that is concerned, therefore, it need not be purely from the one side."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 1227.]
9.30 p.m.
We are presented with a picture of the Government seeming to accept that the Assembly will work in this way and that the Executive Committee will also be a bipartisan or multi-partisan body. There is certainly nothing to stop that. If the Minister's argument made any sense, one would expect it to be clear from the language of the Bill and the speech of Lord Donaldson that the Executive Committee, unlike all the other committees, was not to contain anyone except members of the majority party.
If all the talk about firm government, the need to avoid delay and indecision and the danger of putting the whole structure at risk made any sense, the right course would be to make the Executive Committee a genuine Cabinet where everyone was of one mind and not to allow in people from the other parties, but that is not what Lord Donaldson said or what the Bill says. Quite the reverse.
The Government are in a terrible mess. Once one says that the Executive Committee will, might, or should contain members of the other parties, questions of cohesiveness or the secrecy of the Cabinet

do not arise. The Executive Committee will be an inter-party body in which matters are discussed. In those circumstances, I do not see how the Government can rationally put forward the argument that if the Executive Committee is required to reflect the balance of the Assembly—and there will plainly be a majority on the Executive Committee for the majority party in the Assembly—that will cause delay and indecision and put the structure of the Assembly at risk, but it is all right merely to prescribe that the Executive Committee shall, or is likely to, contain some members of minority parties, but not a proportionate number.
That is one position which is indefensible. It is defensible not to have a committee structure at all and it is just about defensible to have a system in which all the committees operate on a balance of party representation but the Executive Committee is comprised of solely the Government party. However, it is quite indefensible to say that the Executive Committee should have some members of the Opposition but that it immediately becomes dangerous and will cause delay and indecision if the number of members of the Opposition is that number required to reflect the composition of the Assembly as a whole.
Talk about strength of will and the use of other such heroic terms in this context is language designed to terrorise the House into rejecting the Lords amendment, but it is language which is quite unrelated to what the Bill says and to what Lord Donaldson has said. The Government ought to have the courage of their convictions. If they believe in a power-sharing type of Assembly, they should follow it through to the Executive Committee as well.
The only other argument that has been put forward is the caucus argument—that if the amendment is accepted, decisions will be taken by the majority party in smokefilled rooms and not in the Assembly. That is not a defensible argument in this context. All the subject committees, which will have so much power, will include representatives of the minority parties in proportion to their strength in the Assembly and all the decisions on those committees will be taken in caucuses. The Executive Committee will be no different.
What is more, the Executive Committee, as the Minister says and as envisaged by Lord Donaldson, will contain members of the Opposition. If matters of high policy affecting the future of Wales are required to be considered in secret by the Government party, it will be necessary, even without the amendment, for the caucus to deal with them. There is no legislative way of avoiding a caucus. It is a sinister word for a perfectly natural operation—namely, those of like mind getting together and deciding what to say. To suggest that it is something sinister that will enter the Assembly if the amendment is allowed to stand is not an argument that can be supported on any rational basis.
For those reasons I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Lords amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: In the absence of the great Welsh pro-devolutionists I suppose that I am entitled to speak.
I refer again to Lord Donaldson's speech on 21st June. I heard the debate in which the noble Lord made that speech. With the exception of Lord McCluskey—incidentally, I do not think that the Bill can be handled other than by criminal lawyers—Lord Donaldson was as confused as Baroness Stedman—and I like them both. Neither of them had a clue what they were on about. They were as confused as anybody else. Never was there such massive confusion within another place.
Lord Donaldson said:
The focus of this responsibility will be the Executive Committee, composed mainly of the leaders of the subject committees.
What does "mainly" mean? It is the vaguest of terms. The noble Lord continued:
If the strength of will of the Executive Committee is weakened, as I think it would be weakened by the adoption of these Amendments, then there are grave dangers for the good government of Wales.
—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 1229.]
I hardly wanted to talk to you, Mr. Speaker, about the good Government of Wales, but I wonder about "grave dangers" in this sense. For instance, it might fall to a majority party to adopt a caucus system. I do not know what "party" is

all about. I took part in a meeting this morning of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That is a caucus system. What is so dreadful about that? If anyone has the notion that given the concept of "party" there will not be caucuses—call them private meetings or whatever—that seems completely unreal.
I do not want to take up the time of my Welsh colleagues other than to ask a basic question. It is a question that I put in another form in the previous debate. What exactly will the Executive do? Its laws will be formed for it by another institution. It may be said that the Executive will have a say in the formation of those laws at a pre-legislative stage and that that may be done on an informat basis. If that is done, we shall get into another problem. There will then have to be a whole series, on every occasion, of separate laws for England and separate laws for Wales. Therefore, we return to the same problem.
Let us suppose that there is a Conservative Government in Downing Street and a Welsh Labour Assembly. Does there not have to be separate legislation for Wales if the influence, so called, is to have any effect? If that is not so, we shall have the tail wagging the dog and a Welsh Labour Assembly having an influence over Conservative formulated laws for England. We cannot have it both ways. We return to the unholy muddle that we have seen before. We are dealing with a completely unworkable proposal.
I am not uptight about the Welsh Bill as I was about the Scotland Bill. That is partly because I do not believe that it is a serious proposition that there will be a separate Welsh State as I believe there will be a separate Scottish State, and that we are on the motorway to separation. On the other hand, hon. Members from the rest of the United Kingdom are entitled to speak when they think that there is major confusion for which the House is responsible.

Sir David Renton: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), with the perspicacity to which we have become accustomed, referred to ways of achieving good government in Wales. One way of achieving it is to have this assembly, our Parliament here, presided over by a great Welshman, as happens now. I


cannot think of any improvement upon that.
Turning to clause 22, we see the essence of what we are discussing. In specific terms, it provides that
In naming people to be members of a committee appointed under section 17, 21 or 53 of this Act, other than the Executive Committee.
the effect of one of our amendments will be to leave out those words—
the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is so far as practicable, reflected in the membership of the committee".
I should remind the House of those other committees. They will include all the subject committees under clause 17. There will perhaps be a dozen of those. They will include the very important committee, under clause 21, for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation. Above all, they will include the accounts committee—"the finance committee" it will no doubt come to be called—under clause 53. That is the most important of the committees.
The Government have decided that, in respect of those committees, democracy shall prevail—that there shall be what is called "the balance of parties". But in the most important committee of all, the umbrella committee, the Executive Committee, the committee which, above all, will be representative of the Assembly in its dealings with the outside world, democracy shall not prevail. In other words, the Government take the view that in lesser matters democracy shall prevail but in the one major matter it shall not. I do not see the sense of that.
The Under-Secretary of State said that if these amendments were accepted and the Executive Committee had to become representative of the parties in the Assembly, it would change the whole structure of the Bill. I do not understand how he can say such a thing. At best, it is a simple exaggeration. At worst, it reveals his complete lack of faith in the structure of the Bill, if its success is to depend on political distortion of that kind on the Executive Committee.
We are somewhat handicapped in discussing this matter, because the Under-Secretary of State has not been able to tell us what the size of the Executive Committee will be. He has not been

able to tell us how many leaders of other committees will be members of it. Yet, his whole case seems to depend on that. Neither has lie been able to tell us how those leaders will be chosen in each of the various committees which will have the function of electing them.
It seems that, at any rate for the first election in Wales, a particular party—the Labour Party—is likely to have a majority in the Assembly. It is by no mean certain, but it is likely. If so, and if on each of the committees the Labour Party is predominant, it will presumably elect one of its members to be the leader of committee. If that is not to be so, let us be told, because it could help to set our minds at rest. But if the leader of each committee is to come from the majority party on the committee, it follows, as night follows day, that the membership of the Executive Committee will consist of leaders who are members of that one party.
What are we to infer from that? Is this democracy, or is it a sham? What will the people of Wales think about it? Not all the people of Wales are dedicated Socialists. Even some of those who are, as we know from what has been said in the House, are not enamoured of the Bill. We have not heard a satisfactory case in favour of this proposition.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Dalyell: I have talked to Lord Heycock who, for many years, was chairman of the Glamorgan county council. He asked "What distinguishes this proposed set-up from local government, given the nature of the proposed Executive?"

Sir D. Renton: There is much that underlies that question. I concede the hon. Member's point. I cannot speak for the present set-up of local government in Wales. I do not know enough about it. But in English local government when one party tends to dominate, as I am happy to say happens in my constituency, the main committee of the council—the policy and resources committee—tends to reflect the balance of the parties. It reflects the political representation on the council as a whole. That seems to be right. But that is not the pattern that the Government wish to follow.
With respect to the Under-Secretary of State, I must tell him that so far he has not been of much help to the House. Let


us see whether we can derive any help from the Government spokesman in the House of Lords.

Sir Anthony Meyer: My right hon. and learned Friend obviously understands the Bill better than any Government Member, including the Government spokesman. He explained how the chairmen of the committees would be members of the dominant party. I cannot understand how the other one-third of Members will be chosen. Will they be co-opted by the chairmen? If that is to be so, the committees will be one-party committees. What force is there in the suggestion that there should be a power-sharing committee?

Sir D. Renton: I cannot answer that question. Only a Government spokesman can do so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), because he has added yet another uncertainty to those that I have already mentioned. He has raised a further factor which the House should bear in mind when deciding whether the Government are right or wrong.
In the other place, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge said:
Any delegation of executive powers which the Assembly might decide to adopt is made subject in the Bill to the need for political balance, and hence participation, in the subject committees.
So far so good. He went on:
These committees are there to keep a check on the actions of the leaders, who will regularly require the approval of the subject committees for their exercise of delegated powers.
That sounds good on the surface, until one goes into the matter in more detail. One finds that in the context of party politics, as we know it, it is a meaningless expression of what might happen.
The subject committees will have elected the leaders. The majority party in the Assembly will be the majority party on each committee. Therefore, there will be about as much check on the actions of the leaders as one gets in this House. I say this with deep respect to majority parties of either political complexion. I do not say that people never defy their own Government. I have done so myself in my time—not very often, but when I felt strongly. But the majority party wins the day so long as it has a majority. If

it has not, it should go back to the electors. That might be better than foisting this Bill on the people of Wales for a referendum.
Lord Donaldson went on:
Furthermore, the Bill makes it possible, though this is a matter for the Assembly, to add some extra, perhaps non-majority Party, members to the Executive Committee.
How decent! What a beautiful thought, that perhaps the Assembly would add a few non-majority party members—not, we are told, in order to redress a balance in the Executive when it is unbalanced by leaders of committees—

Sir Raymond Gower: Is not the most important word there "perhaps"?

Sir D. Renton: Being a modest sort of man, I did not emphasise that word too much, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right; the word "perhaps" adds further uncertainty to the uncertainty already expressed about this part of the legislation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I may not be following the right hon. and learned Gentleman as clearly as I should, but is not the position safeguarded by clause 22, which says:
In naming persons to be members of a committee appointed under section 17, 21 or 53 of this Act, other than the Executive Committee, the Assembly shall secure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is, so far as practicable, reflected in the membership of the committee."?
That will apply in the case of the Executive Committee.

Hon. Members: No.

Sir D. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman is one of my old parliamentary friends, although not strictly a political friend, and I have deep respect for him. However, if he had heard me earlier, he would have heard me read out the whole of that clause. Its effect is exactly the opposite of what he has stated. That is why we are trying to put the matter right.

Mr. Brittan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that, in view of the generous and correct tribute that he has paid to the right hon. Gentleman, he should go further, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's expression of opinion and welcome him as a new and powerful ally to the Opposition side of the debate on this issue?

Sir D. Renton: That is a brilliant suggestion, hut one which would never have occurred to me, because I would never have dared address such an invitation to no less a personage than the Leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. Dalyell: Chairman.

Sir D. Renton: I apologise. It is such a pity that the term "chairman", with which we are so familiar, has not been used in the Bill in this context. That is the reason for my slip of the tongue and I hope that I shall be forgiven.
I hope that it will not weary the House if I conclude by referring again to what was said by Lord Donaldson, because that is the only official guidance that we have been given. We have had no guidance from the Front Bench this evening on this important matter, so we have to resort to words expressed in another place. As I said before, we should be grateful for the opportunities that another place has given us.
Lord Donaldson went on to say:
I suggest that we must be careful in seeking to add to or disturb the structure set out in the Bill.
That is the same phrase as the Minister used. I do not wish to repeat my comment on that, save to say that if the structure of the Bill really depends upon a scheme of this kind the Bill itself cannot be worth very much.

Mr. Dalyell: Further down Lord Donaldson said:
Essentially what the Amendments are aimed at is, as I said before, a form of power-sharing.
It will be recollected that Lord Donaldson was a Minister in Northern Ireland. When he refers to power-sharing, we can all guess precisely what he was referring to, and therefore I put it in the form of a question: is this power-sharing along the Northern Ireland lines?

Sir D. Renton: I confess to feeling a difficulty about this expression "power-sharing". I must apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), with whom I agree on nearly every occasion because I admire his great and clear mind. When he spoke about power-sharing as being a laudable objective in relation to what we are discussing here, I

confess that I became a bit confused, because power-sharing in Northern Ireland is not an expression of the balance of parties. It is something to overcome the imbalance of parties which prevails in Northern Ireland. Is that not so?

Mr. Dalyell: That is right.

Sir D. Renton: To use it in this context shows that the noble Lord seems to have misunderstood the situation that he was trying to explain, just as I think the Minister has misunderstood it.
I have one final passage to read, and I apologise for keeping the House for so long, but it is because I have given way so much. Lord Donaldson posed the question:
How would elected representatives of the Welsh people be accounted responsible?
That is a burning question. The Welsh people will want to know, and the answer that he gives is:
The Bill itself provides for a fair belance on the subject committees, but it seems to the Government wholly wrong to force this concept on the Assembly for the Executive Committee as well."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1978; Vol. 393, cc. 1228–9.]
I do not see how one distinguishes between the Executive Committee and the other committees. What is right for the other committees, including the very important finance committee, must, I should have thought, a fortiori, even the more so, be right for the Executive itself. I trust that I have said enough to make the Government have second thoughts.

Sir Raymond Gower: I, too, should like to press the Minister to consider this again in the light of what has been said. The advantage of having power-sharing, or a fair balance of the parties, was recognised by the Government when the Bill was drafted. I suppose they thought that by putting in this sort of provision they would commend this part of the Bill to people in all parts of the Principality.
There are obvious advantages in having this representation in accordance with the balance of the parties on the subject committees. If the Assembly is considering a particular topic through one of its subject committees, all the parties represented in the Assembly would wish to co-operate and participate in that consideration. What real argument, therefore, can the Government offer in support


of applying a different basis to the Executive Committee? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) appears to say that this different basis would not apply to the accounts committee.

Sir David Renton: It is clear in the Bill that the accounts committee will have party representation.

10.0 p.m.

Sir R. Gower: That is the point I want to make. The accounts committee is one of the subject committees. It will be dealing with finance just as all the other committees will be dealing with other subjects. So we can properly describe it as a subject committee. If the Government are prepared to contemplate representation based on and in accordance with the balance of the parties for an important committee such as that, why cannot they take that small extra

step and extend to the Executive Committee what they admit to be a beneficial principle? That is all that we ask, and it is all that the other place has put into the Bill. That was a most commendable improvement. Why are the Government now seeking to divorce the committee from this beneficial principle?
The Minister said nothing in opening to explain why this was being done. He said nothing to convince us that this move would be a great advantage. We have been assured that this is not a legislative Assembly dealing with primary legislation. It is purely an executive body and one admirably suited to this kind of representation. There might be obvious objections to this idea in a legislative Assembly, but we are not dealing with such a body and therefore the principle should apply. I hope, therefore, that the Government will change their mind and will declare their change of heart before the end of this debate.

Sir A. Meyer: I am even more lost and confused than any of my hon. Friends about this matter, wandering around on this "darkling plain" with these "ignorant armies" clashing by night. I had hoped for some guidance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton), and I was disappointed that he was unable to enlighten my ignorance. It may be that the Minister will be able to clear up this matter. I am not in the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). I do not demand that the Government should make this or that concession. I just want the Government to explain what this is all about. Let me make the Under-Secretary an offer. If he can explain what this is all about I will consider supporting him in the Lobby. If he can convince me that it will work, I give an absolute pledge to support him. I cannot say fairer than that.
The idea behind this sludgy amalgam is one which could conceivably be made to work only with some kind of proportional representation—and I am sorry to go back to that. That would exert some kind of pressure on the parties in the subject committees to draw together rather than to pull apart. However, that does not apply in any way to the Executive Committee which is what we are principally concerned with tonight.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We all have our views on whether there should be an Assembly, but if there is to be one I think we all agree that we should try to make it work sensibly. In considering the work of the Executive Committee and the question of party balance it is worth drawing parallels with the Cabinet, which makes decisions and recommendations, and the House of Commons. We can think of the party balance in committees as it is in the Standing Committees of the House of Commons, where there is a party balance. There is proportional representation. In fact, depending on the membership of the House, so we get such representation. Whereas originally the Government were recommending that the party balance should not apply to the Executive Committee, the party balance

should apply to the subject committees, where, in effect, the hon. Member will have PR, because the membership of the committees will be dependent on the numbers in the parties.

Sir A. Meyer: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has at least explained how it is meant to work. What he has not done is to convince me that it possibly can work.
However, there is one question to which I sought, in vain, an answer from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire. Perhaps I may ask the Under-Secretary if he can explain to me exactly by what mechanism the Assembly will appoint this one-third of additional members of the Executive Committee. As far as I can make out from reading the Bill, it merely says that the Assembly shall appoint these people. By what method?
On the assumption that there is a one-party majority within the Assembly, nothing is said in the Bill about the Executive Committee having to reflect that balance of parties. Are we to take it that the Executive Committee will be a monolithic one-party committee? If that is so, we ought to know it. It may very well be that the Assembly would be much more workable by having a one-party Executive Committee. I do not necessarily take issue with that. But if that is so, it is something very different from that which we have been led to expect up to now. We need an answer to this question in order to know where we are.

Mr. Peter Thomas: I feel that I should apologise because I have intervened on too many occasions this evening. However, I find myself in very good company in as much as I am totally confused.
I was a little concerned about the Executive Committee. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that if the Executive Committee is, in fact, to be something in the nature of a Cabinet, the head of that committee being something like a Prime Minister, one can understand why the Executive Committee was excluded in clause 22 from having, as far as practicable, its membership reflected by the balance of parties in the Assembly. But that does not appear to be so.
If there is power to appoint about one-third extra to that Executive Committee and if one is to accept what Lord Donaldson said in the other place, which was that the Bill makes it possible—although this is a matter for the Assembly —to add some extra, perhaps non-majority party, members to the Executive Committee, the Executive Committee could not possibly be something of the nature of a Cabinet. It could not possibly be that sort of committee which one could compare with a Cabinet, which inevitably must have members of the same party and a Prime Minister.
Therefore, it is very important that we should get a clear explanation from the Minister as soon as possible about that matter, because it is a little disturbing that it was purposely put into the Bill that, so far as practicable, the balance of parties should be reflected in the subject committees, which include such major committees as that for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation, as well as the accounts committee, which, incidentally, as far as I can understand clause no. 53, is a committee which excludes leaders, members of the Executive Committee, apart from one. Therefore, we obviously wish to exclude members of the Executive Committee from the major committees. This is something that should be explained.

Mr. Brittan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, to make confusion worse confounded, Lord Donaldson also said
The Executive Committee is like a Cabinet and the head of that committee is like a Prime Minister …"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 1225.]

Mr. Thomas: I am not surprised. I had half-quoted that sentence. Lord Donaldson said:
I do not think that this is a very difficult problem. The subject committees are a form of power sharing, which a good many of us who have worked in Northern Ireland in one way and another have always been looking for, and have so far not achieved. The Executive Committee is like a Cabinet and the head of that committee is like a Prime Minister, who is a chairman but political. I believe that this is the intention of the set-up and I think that the clauses as they now stand carry it out accurately. I do not really think that there is anything to worry about here.
That I can understand, but I cannot understand what he said later:

Furthermore, the Bill makes it possible, though this is a matter for the Assembly, to add some extra, perhaps non-majority Party, members to the Executive Committee."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 21st June 1978; Vol. 393, c. 1925–28.]
What form of political Cabinet is that going to be? This is something about which we should be cautious. Some of us are very perplexed about the whole thing.

Mr. Brittan: It is clear that the arrangements contained in the Bill does not commend itself to the House. Not a single voice has been raised to defend it. The only difference has been between those of my hon. Friends who are puzzled and those who are certain that the arrangement is wrong. No one has spoken in favour of it.
The arrangement itself is not unclear, since it clearly envisages the Executive Committee exercising a sort of Cabinet role in that it is making the key decisions. But the subject committees are also involved in the executive role. Therefore, the problem is not that there is no clarity as to what the Bill requires but that there is no logical basis for the distinction between the two.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) put an analogy that is simple and reasonable—that the Executive Committee is like a Cabinet and that the subject committees are like standing committees in this House, and therefore it is reasonable that the subject committees should reflect the party balance of the Executive Committee. That analogy is the only possible basis for defending the arrangement, but it is wholly false. As has been pointed out, the Executive Committee, although said by Lord Donaldson to be in some ways like a Cabinet, is also envisaged to include—and may well do so—members of opposition parties. By the same token, the subject committees are not like standing committees because they are to have executive powers themselves. Therefore, all we have is a hybrid arrangement. It is a cross between a Cabinet system and a committee system. That is what is so difficult to defend.
Where I am afraid that I was less than fair and obviously lost my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is in what I said about power-sharing. Seeing so


many Northern Ireland Members here, I would not want to be misunderstood on that point. I did not say that I thought that power-sharing was a good thing. I said that the scheme for power-sharing envisaged in the Bill was one alternative to a Cabinet system.
10.15 p.m.
If we are to have a scheme for power-sharing, with all the disadvantages as well as the advantages of a scheme of that kind, we have to be consistent, and to have an arrangement under which the power-sharing carries on to the Executive Committee and is not confined simply to the subject committees, because the work of the Executive Committee is not different in kind from that of the subject committees. Both have an executive role, and in any event the Executive Committee, as envisaged by Lord Donaldson, if not by the Minister here tonight, will certainly contain members of the minority parties.
It may well be that there are people in this House who will say that the whole concept of power-sharing is wrong, that it is unworkable or undemocratic or unfair, and very powerful arguments can be put forward in support of that proposition. But that cannot be the Government's attitude, because the bulk of the arrangements in the Welsh Assembly are in support of a power-sharing arrangement. It is only when we get to the Executive Committee that all the arguments against power-sharing are brought up with great force and trenchancy by the Minister, and yet what he wants is something which itself still contains the residue of a power-sharing arrangement, even at the Executive Committee level, because it is envisaged, at least by Lord Donaldson, that there shall be some members on the Executive Committee from other than the majority party.
It is not, therefore, a problem of being uncertain what the Government want but rather one of seeing what defence there can be for a hybrid arrangement of this kind. The Government have opted for the power-sharing route, and they must have the courage of their convictions. The only alternative is, at the very least, to make it quite clear that the Executive Committee should not have on it any people from the opposition parties, and to resile from Lord Donaldson's proposi-

tions, or, alternatively, to drop the whole power-sharing arrangement, which would mean re-structuring the Bill. But it will not do for the Minister to give dire warnings to the House about the delay and the indecision and the putting of the structure at risk, and all the other hazards that he mentioned, when they are created by his own arrangement. They are created by an Executive Committee which will not be like a Cabinet because it will not speak with one voice, because Lord Donaldson himself envisaged that it might contain people from other parties.
The real analogy, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire pointed out, is with a county council. There we have a committee structure in which the committees are not deliberative committees such as our own Select Committees, nor are they legislative committees, such as the Standing Committees, but they are themselves committees which are exercising executive functions. There the commitees reflect the balance of power on the county council as a whole, but so, usually, does the main committee, call it the finance and general purposes committee or by whatever name the particular county council chooses to give it. By that arrangement the county council is able to operate perfectly well with having minority representation on the main governing committee as well as on the subject committees.
If that can happen with a county council, I do not see why it cannot happen with the Welsh Assembly. I am not trying to decry the Welsh Assembly in any way or to raise the whole question whether it is to be regarded as analogous to a county council or analogous to some other body. But at least in this respect the basic structure of the Assembly is one which is analogous to a county council, and there is absolutely no reason why the government of Wales should grind to a halt if the same arrangements operate in relation to the Executive Committee as operate in the case of most county councils.
I conclude by pointing out the problem that is faced—it was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), I think—about the Executive Committee's composition as it stands in the Bill. If two-thirds are to be


the leaders of the other committees, how are the remainder to be appointed? Lord Donaldson envisaged that those others might not be members of the majority party and might reflect the minority views in the Assembly, but how are they to be appointed?
What I fear is that although Lord Donaldson may make liberal noises about their reflecting the other parties, in the absence of any specific provision such as clause 22 affecting the executive committee there is a real risk that the Assembly simply will not appoint any members of other parties, because there is nothing that requires it to do so. What Lord Donaldson put forward as a hope, no doubt in total sincerity, may turn out not to be a reality.
Therefore, what we are pointing out to the Government is that there is a lack of logic in the arrangements they have proposed and that if they wish to be true to their own system they should accept the amendments made in another place.

Mr. Alec Jones: With the leave of the House, I must say that I share the views expressed by some hon. Members who suggested that they were becoming more confused as the debate went on. I started with a simple understanding of what was meant, but the contributions from many quarters have not added to my understanding. I can well understand the confusion of which the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) spoke. There is a misunderstanding of what we seek to do in the Bill, which is wherever possible to maximise the opportunity for involvement of all Members of the Assembly in decision-making.
I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) in his use of words to the effect that the Assembly's efficiency will be largely dependent on the working of the subject committees. It was because we felt that those committees were the key committees in many ways, though not completely, that we decided to write into the Bill provisions to ensure that "so far as practicable"—those words are in the Bill—there should be a party balance on them.
I think that both sides of the House agree with that. But it seems to me that

we come to the parting of the ways because we do not agree that there is a fundamental difference between the Executive Committee and the subject committees. The majority party in the Assembly will not only have to be the responsible party but will have to exercise that responsibility and be seen to be exercising it. The tool for exercising that responsibility will be the Executive Committee.
It is not true that the Executive Committee is the same as any other committee. It alone will be concerned with the whole overall strategy of the Assembly and the total overall policy implications of decisions. But above all it will be responsible for the allocation of resources between one committee and another. Therefore, we are right to say that it is in a different ball game from the subject committees. If we accept that, we think it right to say that we treat them differently. That is why we have put the provisions in the Bill.
Then we ask "Is it right or reasonable that we should dictate even at this level to the Assembly as to the absolute composition of the Executive Committee?" The Assembly may feel that it would want to increase the membership of the Executive Committee not only to include the leaders of other committees but to have added members up to one-third of the number, and we believe that we should give the Assembly that degree of flexibility to make that choice if it wishes.
That is what I said in opening the debate, and I believe that that is what Lord Donaldson said in another place—that the added members would be there up to one-third of the number. I think that I said that those extra members could belong to the non-majority party. But it would be for the Assembly itself to decide whether it would use the added members and whether it would draw them from the majority or minority parties.

Sir A. Meyer: Nobody doubts the Minister's good faith or good intentions, but what incentive will there be for the majority party in the Assembly, in choosing the additional members for the Executive Committee, to pay any regard to political balance? Should it not at least have been written into the Bill that in choosing the additional members the


Assembly should pay some regard to the political composition of the Assembly as a whole?

Mr. Jones: The fundamental point is that the Executive Committee will have the responsibility of ensuring that the system it adopts, and the composition of committees which it draws up, enables the Assembly efficiently and effectively to carry out its work. If the Assembly feels that it can be aided by having an Executive Committee composed not only of leaders of the subject committees but having added to it other members, either from the majority or minority parties, the Assembly will be able to do so. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable and proper attitude to adopt. I accept that some hon. Members do not agree, but it emphasises the difference as we see it between the subject committees and the Executive Committee, and at the same time allows the Assembly the right degree of flexibility.

Mr. Brittan: Would not the Minister agree that if, as he envisages, the Executive Committee includes at the option of the Assembly people from the opposition parties, any analogy between the Executive Committee and a Cabinet must totally disappear? Surely it is not possible, as the Minister has suggested, for the Executive Committee to work like a Cabinet if it chooses to include people from other parties?

Mr. Jones: I have carefully avoided—I trust that when I check in Hansard tomorrow I have lived up to it—using the word Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had used the word. I am merely trying to ensure that I did not put that word on the record, because it was not a word that I wanted to use.
We believe that there is a difference between the nature of the Executive Committee, and its work, and the subject committees. But we also believe that it is right to allow the Assembly this degree of flexibility to add to the Executive Committee. If the Assembly in its wisdom wants to add people from a minority party, then it is perfectly free to do so. I believe that this will provide the right sort of machinery which will enable the Assembly to work sensibly.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Can my hon. Friend assist those

of us who will shortly be going into the Lobby? If the Government feel that there has to be a distinction between the Executive Committee and the subject committees, which is understandable, why should powers be given to the Assembly to change that principle if it so desires? That appears to be rather contradictory.

Mr. Jones: The attitude which we have adopted throughout the Bill is that wherever it is possible and reasonable to allow the Assembly to make decisions affecting its own management, we would do so. Therefore, I believe that it is right and proper in this particular instance to give this added flexibility to the Assembly. It is not an insistence that the Assembly does it. But in the light of the experience of its work the Assembly will be able to judge whether it is desirable to use these added members.

Mr. Ioan Evans: One item which is causing confusion is that the Leader of the Assembly will be known as the chief executive. But at present in Wales we have chief executive officers serving on the counties and districts, and they are full-time officials.

Mr. Jones: I am sorry that we shall not get on to the next debate. In fact, we are proposing to agree with the Lords in the amendment about the designation of chief executive, although I must admit that I would never go to the gallows over whatever anyone cared to call him.

Mr. Brittan: The Minister says that the Assembly should be given flexibility and the right to decide wherever possible. Therefore, why is it that the Assembly should be given the right to decide whether to include people from the opposition in the Executive Committee when this House is requiring the Assembly to ensure that the party balance is reflected on the subject committees? Surely we cannot have it both ways. Either the Assembly is to have that flexibility or it is not.

Mr. Jones: There is surely a difference. The composition and make-up of a committee is a management issue—a matter of how the Assembly conducts its affairs. The question of local government reorganisation—

It being half-past Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the


Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 272.

[For Division List No. 291 see c. 735]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'clock.

Lords amendments nos. 32, 35 and 36 disagreed to.

Clause 23

DEFAMATION

Lords amendment: no. 37, in page 9, line 42, leave out from ("statement") to ("in")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 264.

[For Division List No. 292 see c. 741]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 32

REMUNERATION

Lords amendment: no. 38, in page 11, line 18, leave out ("Assembly") and insert ("Secretary of State").

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:— [Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith:—

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 274.

[For Division List No. 293 see c 745]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 39 to 43 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 33, 34 and 44 to 51 agreed to.

Clause 37

INDUSTRIAL AND ECONOMIC GUIDELINES

Lords amendment: no. 52 in page 14, leave out lines 29 to 35.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. John Morris: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are to take Lords amendments nos. 53, 54, 58, 127, 146, 147, 153, 154, 166, 174, 188 and 190.

Mr. Morris: The position we seek to restore is the object intended through a combination of clause 37 and part IX of schedule 2 of devolving the bodies referred to, namely, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales, to the Welsh Assembly, subject to certain safeguards.
The other place sought to exclude these three bodies, and the position is further affected by an amendment standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), indicating, as I understand it, that the Conservative Opposition are prepared to devolve the Land Authority for Wales but not the WDA and the Development Board for Rural Wales. We adhere to the original position that we proposed in the Bill.
I noted with pleasure the approach of the Opposition in the other place to this problem, even if I did not agree with their conclusions, because my impression from the speeches was that the other place wanted to reserve these three bodies because it approved of how they were operating and because of its appreciation of their success. That cheered me a great deal in reflecting on my approach to the other place's conclusions.
I welcome that approach knowing, as I do, the approach of the Conservatives to the Welsh Development Agency when we set it up. The Conservative Party voted against the Second Reading of the Bill setting it up. We know, too, that a major question mark would hang over the future of the Development Board if the Conservatives came to power. Indeed,


I suspect that they have already pronounced sentence of death on it. I am sure that that is also the impression of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and of all Members for Mid-Wales.
I am interested in the new approach, as I understand it, of the Conservatives to the Land Authority for Wales. I had the privilege of replying to the Second Reading debate on the Community Land Bill, under which the Land Authority was set up. It is now an extremely successful body—an impression conveyed in the debates in the other place on these three bodies.
All three bodies have two things in common, and they are very important matters. They deal with matters which have major planning and social content, but at the same time with economic implications. Secondly, they are all of a major concern to people living in Wales. I believe that the clause and the schedule, as originally set out, provided a realistic and coherent devolution of powers to the Assembly without prejudicing the Government's responsibility for economic and other matters with wider United Kingdom implications.
The Welsh Development Agency has wide environmental powers and operates closely with other powers to be devolved —for example, planning, new towns and the countryside. I believe that it is right that those powers should be devolved. But in regard to industry-related functions I want to make it quite clear that the agency will operate under guidelines which will ensure that the interests of other parts of the United Kingdom are fully protected. The guidelines are under the control of this House. They are not devolved. They are subject to annulment by this House if it so wills. The WDA would have to make its annual report to the Secretary of State on the matters covered by the guidelines, and that report would have to be laid before Parliament. I believe that in this way we ensure that we have realistic devolution and a safeguarding of economic and wider considerations by the control that is exercised through the guidelines.
The Development Board for Rural Wales would operate in a similar way. The board has certain powers with regard to social development which are akin to the powers exercised by new town devel-

opment corporations and by local authorities. The absurd result of the amendment carried in the other place is that the Assembly will not have powers with regard to the board but will have powers of a similar nature when they are exercised by other bodies. I am sure that the House will agree that this is an absurd conclusion, whatever the merits of restraint on one side or the other.
I do not think that there is much that I need say about the Land Authority for Wales, as I understand that the Opposition would now seek to allow the Land Authority to be devolved. This body was praised in the other place for its efficiency, for its popularity, and even for its profitability. The Opposition in the Lords were asked whether the test of approving the devolution of a body were whether it was no good and that, if no good, it should be devolved. When that question was put, the reply was in the affirmative. I hope that this change of heart in regard to the Land Authority does not indicate that the Opposition have ceased to regard the Land Authority as being efficient.
Our submission to the House is that all three bodies should be dealt with together and on the same basis. They will work closely with other bodies with similar powers, in the environmental and social field, there will be the necessary guidelines and reservations to protect the general interest, and Parliament, through its control of the guidelines, will have control on that side of their responsibilities.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I begin by saying to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State that his statement that the Development Board for Rural Wales is under sentence of death from the Conservative Opposition is unmitigated rubbish, and he knows it.

Mr. John Morris: I am sure that all hon. Members with an interest in Mid-Wales will welcome very much this change of heart, this belated conversion, because I know of the uncertainty and chaos which have been caused in Mid-Wales by the statements of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). The change of heart will be welcomed very much indeed. I thank the hon. Member very much.

Mr. Roberts: The only chaos is in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mind. I ask him to read again precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) said on this subject in the Welsh Grand Committee.
I have always thought that one of the less facile arguments for devolution was that it would enable the Secretary of State to concentrate his attention on the problems of the Welsh economy. I cannot say that it was one of the more impressive arguments for devolution, because none of them has been very impressive. Not one has survived even the tender pressures which are all that we have been able to subject them to under the guillotine procedure. Every one of them has a flaw and should have been rejected, along with this measure, to which they and other considerations have given birth.
But there was a superficial attraction in the argument that the Secretary of State should be freed to devote himself heart and soul to resuscitating and regenerating the Welsh economy, especially in view of the new responsibilities undertaken by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in this sphere. But after yesterday's announcement of the unemployment figures, now up to 98,000 in Wales compared with the 38,000 when this Government came into office four years ago, I am not sure that there is any attraction in the argument that the Secretary of State should be relieved in any way, except totally by his resignation, because the more he concentrates his attention on any sphere of government the worse the situation appears to become.
There is a biblical verse commonly seen in school gymnasiums which reads something as follows: "Whatsoever thy hand findest to do, do it with thy might". I think that the Secretary of State has it inscribed somewhere in the Welsh Office, and as a result we have had some mighty high unemployment figures, mighty low housing figures and a mighty bad government record overall in Wales.
But, alas, all this is hardly helping my case against the devolution to the Assembly of responsibility for the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales and for the reten-

tion of control of these bodies by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. However, if we detach the present incumbent of the office of Secretary of State from the office itself, a matter which cannot be long delayed, my argument makes better sense.
I believe that the Government saw this point fairly clearly in the early stages, when they were emphasising the need for economic as well as political unity in the United Kingdom. In "Our Changing Democracy: Devolution to Scotland and Wales", Cmnd 6348, the Government were keen to keep their hold on the agency, but some time between the publication of that document in November 1975 and the publication of the supplementary statement, Cmnd 6585, in August 1976 there was a change of mind, which is summed up in paragraph 39 of the latter document as follows:
The Government have decided that responsibility for the Welsh Development Agency should not be divided, as paragraph 251 of Cmnd 6348 envisaged, but should be transferred to the Welsh Assembly".
The full story of the Government's conversion is well told in Mr John Osborne's book "Creative Conflict", which, along with the Bill, should be compulsory reading for all those intending to vote in the referendum. It is not so much a story of conversion as one of abject submission to the labour and trade union moguls in South Wales, who clearly intend to cast the WDA as a prodigal younger brother of the National Enterprise Board.
It is true that the Welsh Development Agency is currently operating satisfactorily. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke has not been averse to giving the agency credit when credit is due. So far, the agency has operated on sound, commercial principles, as we advised during our discussions of the Welsh Development Agency Act, and we are anxious that it should continue to do so. But we are also aware that there could be a change of policy if the agency is taken over by the Assembly and the Labour Party caucus which is likely to run it, and that it could become an instrument for extending State ownership of industry and for strengthening the socialist grip on the Welsh economy.
11.30 p.m.
We believe that there is more chance of that happening under the Assembly


than there is while the agency is under the control of the Secretary of State. That is why we support the Lords amendments, which are designed to ensure that the agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales remain under his control. That is the crux of this debate. Of course, the Government will argue that they have the power to issue guidelines—we have heard the argument already—under clause 37, as to the exercise by the Assembly of its powers with respect to the functions of those bodies.
It is laid down in subsection (3) that the Assembly shall exercise its powers so as to give effect to those guidelines. But will those guidelines give the Government of the day sufficient control over these bodies, bearing in mind that these bodies can be subsumed by the Assembly under Clause 60? One thing is clear—that the control exercised through the guidelines will be more tenuous than the direct control exercisable by the Secretary of State under the present system. There will thus be a weakening of control by central government in this key economic and industrial area, where we would all agree major initiatives will have to be taken in the years ahead if the Welsh economy is to recover and prosper. The abdication of control by the Secretary of State is, we believe, a grave error of judgment and one which we shall all regret.
Our position on this was very clearly stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke on 3rd May, when he said:
We believe that it is wrong that these bodies should be subject to extermination by the Assembly. They should remain responsible to the Secretary of State and, through him, to this Parliament. Economic and industrial power should remain with the United Kingdom Government, and the provisions of Clause 60 in relation to the WDA and the DBRW are incompatible with that concept. It would be gravely damaging to the United Kingdom economy and to the economy of Wales if within these islands we were to have increasingly powerful independent Governments competing with each other for limited resources and for the available jobs."— [Official Report, 3rd May 1978; Vol. 949, c. 326.]
In their darkest heart of hearts, the Government know that we are right on this, but they have allowed themselves to be pressurised by their supporters in Wales, who took the view—and I quote from the Labour Party's Executive Committee's memorandum of June 1975—that

The economic powers of the Assembly are essential to its effectiveness and its credibility
I can understand that the credibility of the Assembly matters a great deal to the Labour Party in its attempt to outflank the nationalists, real and imagined. But there are other things which matter more. The health and well-being of the Welsh economy matters more. And who is better equipped to secure recovery in that area, in so far as it can be engineered and achieved by the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales? Is it the unknown Executive Committee of an untried Assembly or the Secretary of State and the Welsh Office, with their experience and close connection with central government departments and their organs?

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Member's almost euphoric admiration for the Secretary of State, but I recall the time when his party opposed the setting up of this office. When did his conversion take place?

Mr. Roberts: I do not think that the hon. Member could have been listening to the earlier part of my speech, when I was talking about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's grave responsibility for the record unemployment figures that came out yesterday. It is because we believe that the Government have a sneaking sympathy with our view that we have concentrated on the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales and left aside, through our amendment to Lords amendment no. 54, the Land Authority for Wales, which we do not regard as being in quite the same category as the other two bodies in relation to the Welsh economy. The Land Authority we regard as primarily serving housing needs, although it is also concerned with the acquisition of land for other kinds of development. Nevertheless, the agency and the development board have their own land acquisition powers and can operate independently in this respect.
We hope that at this eleventh hour the Government will give serious thought to the possibility of returning to their original thinking on this subject. The WDA and the DBRW are functioning properly, and they have made a resonable start. We see no benefit resulting


from the change proposed by the Government under the Bill; quite the opposite. We see the danger of a wrongheaded regional policy being pursued through these bodies—a policy that might be at variance and in conflict with the national strategy, and this could result only in the creation of unnecessary problems and difficulties.
This is a formidable group of amendments, but the difference between us and the Government is clear. We believe that the WDA and the DBRW should be untouched by the Bill, because, first, there is a danger of creating a schizophrenic economic approach to the problems of Wales, secondly, the WDA, under the control of a Socialist Assembly, is likely to pursue different policies, more concerned with the advancement of State ownership and control than with assisting in the recovery of the Welsh economy, and, thirdly, the record of the WDA and the DBRW to date is in most respects commendable. Why change what is working reasonable well?
Finally, the Bill provides for the dissolution of the WDA and the DBRW under certain conditions. Curiously, the Scottish Assembly has no similar power to disband the Scottish Development Agency. The two bodies of ours could be replaced by Assemblymen, not necessarily equipped with the requisite knowledge and expertise, and with sectional and particular interests to promote.
For these significant reasons I ask my hon. Friends to support Lords amendment no. 52.

Mr. Torn Ellis: I have tried very hard to follow the thrust of the hon. Member's argument. It seemed to me that he was basing his whole case on the argument that Welsh economic policy, in so far as it has existed over the past 40 years—ever since we first had depressed areas, just before the war—has been determined by central Government. Since Welsh comparative economic history has been anything but satisfactory with this central direction, does not the hon. Member think that the whole of his case is built on rather shaky foundations?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly I do not agree with that view. The choice that we are facing now is whether we have an econo-

mic and industrial policy which has the full support and resources of central Government, or whether we devolve economic powers to those two bodies which are ultimately dependent for their resources upon this place. It is very clear that by devolving this power to Wales we are weakening the ability of these bodies to achieve the recovery that is needed now.

Mr. Kinnock: If I did not know that we have had such a lousy summer that it is impossible, I would think that the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) was suffering from heat stroke. He seems to have seen a mirage called "the extension of socialism in Wales" under the auspices of the Welsh Development Agency.
I know that the hon. Gentleman, together with some of his hon. Friends, believes that we already live in some kind of proletarian socialist workers' republic. I suppose that it assists their electioneering, or at least gives them a little more energy for the fight—with or without an election—in order to delude themselves with the idea that we have had significant advances in socialism. Of course it helps with the analysis that the hon. Member has given of the propositions before us tonight to pretend to himself that trade union moguls, as he called them, have got my right hon. Friends around the throat and have choked a concession on the Welsh Development Agency out of them, which now goes into this Cardiff-based Kremlin —the Welsh Assembly.
The hon. Gentleman brought me very close to actually agreeing with my right hon. Friends, but fortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) came to my rescue. He restored my perspective which had been so badly distorted by the hon. Member for Conway. My hon Friend the Member for Wrexham got up, and as the true decentralist that he is, put the blame for the economic difficulties of Wales—the horrific 98,500 unemployed and the threats to our future economic efficiency and even survival—at the door of centralisation.
It would have been helpful if my hon. Friend and Members from Plaid Cymru had gone to Bonn in the last couple of days and informed Mr. Fukuda, Herr Schmidt, President Giscard d'Estaing, President Carter and our own dear Prime


Minister that the problems afflicting the Western world—trade, inflation and unemployment—were not the consequence of any great economic holocaust that had struck us. It was simply that all these economies were over-centralised. As long as we had some bureaucratic shake-out and some decision-making closer to the people, that 20 million dole queue in the West could be dramatically shortened.
Essentially the proposition that the Welsh Development Agency goes to the Welsh Assembly is all part of that total misconception of the nature of our economic illness in the West, as it is specifically and horrifically applied to Wales. It is because I do not accept that thesis that the location of economic decision-making or the location of economic and industrial sponsorship bodies has made any significant contribution to the kind of difficulties we face that I must oppose the view of my right lion. Friends on the question of the WDA.
The economic survival of Wales, and many other parts of the United Kingdom, depends now, and will depend even more in the foreseeable future, on access to large amounts of public finance for the purpose of maintaining and improving the general business and social environment and for the sponsorship and inspiration of new industrial development.
11.45 p.m.
I do not expect Conservative Members, especially since their further conversion to the religion of inequality, to agree with that point of view. But the fact is that Wales is now afloat on public expenditure and would be a greater and more and industrial desert were it not for public assistance, sponsorship and aid of various kinds.
One of my basic reasons for opposing the kind of devolution proposed by my right hon. Friend is that I think it puts in jeopardy the flow of funds we require and the access that we can democratically insist on having under the present system involving a United Kingdom with a centrally controlled Exchequer and with a Parliament that is ultimately responsible in the way in which expenditure takes place.
I believe that the allocation of the powers of the Welsh Development Agency to a Welsh Assembly would significantly jeopardise the possibilities of obtaining

the kind of money needed by the agency either to engage in major industrial development—as I would like to see it doing much more—or what is of equal importance, as the means of priming small industrial and commercial enterprises, which it should do to a much greater extent. Anything that puts such development in jeopardy is unacceptable and retrograde in the development of the Welsh economy.
It is also the fact, as my right hon. Friends must know from their frequent contacts with personnel in the Welsh Development Agency, that the people in the agency, whatever their technical role—whether they be engineers, managers or accountants, many of them rooted in the Labour movement and all having invested a great deal of talent and interest in the future of the Welsh economy—do not in the overwhelming majority want to be part of a devolved structure. They recognise that such a move would be unfortunate in seeking to bring greater prosperity to the Welsh economy.
Those personnel do not want to be divided off, demarcated, split away from or made different from the general mainstream of this part of the industrial strategy as conceived and developed by my right hon. Friends in the Government. The original conception of the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies was somewhat different and rather more progressive, generous and demanding than that which we now have. But we hope that in the fullness of time we shall return to the original propositions and powers laid down in the Labour Party manifesto in 1974 and in the 1975 White Paper "Our Changing Democracy".
It is not the fact that the Welsh Development Agency can extend, in the words of the hon. Member for Conway, the socialist grip on the Welsh economy. If there were the vaguest possibility of that occurring it would do much more than see doubt in my mind. It might make me the most enthusiastic devolutionist of them all, since it might have been an opportunity to shelter the Welsh people from the worst extremes of the recession and give us a basis from which to develop our economy.
We are far from having that, and the possibility of that occurring is even


further postponed and disabled by the Government's proposition to award authority over the development agency to the Assembly and jeopardising its possibilities, the finance it needs and the skills it needs to mobilise for the future development of the Welsh economy.
For those reasons I regret that once again I shall have to agree with the Dennis Canavan fan club along the corridor and associate myself with the general view of their Lordships. It is a matter of extreme regret for me, but the development of the Welsh economy is of such importance that it cannot be left at risk.

Mr. Wigley: I challenge several of the assertions of the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock). First, I challenge the assertion that anything like a majority of those working for the Welsh Development Agency are grass roots Labour Party people. I also challenge the assertion that a majority of those working for the agency would give any positive opinion against the agency being associated with the Assembly.
The hon. Member referred to the separation of the agency from the mainstream of centralised Government. The agency came into existence because these functions have been set up in Wales under a different umbrella from the NEB in England and the SDA in Scotland in recognition of the differences that exist between those countries.
I challenge, too, the hon. Gentleman's assertion that centralisation has led to an improvement of our economic circumstances. The reality is that countries such as Sweden, Norway and Switzerland have unemployment rates of 2 per cent compared with Wales' 9 per cent. That leaves the question at least to be begged.
The real question we are facing is the influence that is to be placed on the development of the WDA. I would have expected the hon. Member for Bedwellty to agree with me that the most important question is how the agency will use its power and the extent to which it will have an interventionalist role. How will it ensure that there is development in the areas where laissez-faire capitalism has failed to solve the economic problems of Wales? Are we more likely to have the emphasis on the sort of programme that

the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues would like to see when for at least half the time, we shall probably have a Conservative Government in London? Are we not more likely to have influence in that direction when we have an Assembly in which the overwhelming majority of Members will not be from the Conservative Party?
I think that the hon. Member for Bedwellty will agree that in its first two or three years the development agency has not so far taken the sort of initiatives that we had hoped for in this direction. There is work to be done in the rural parts of Wales and in the industrial valleys. Yet we see that the agency is backing only winners, and the High Street banks in Cardiff accept the risk evaluation of the agency as a guideline for their investment. The agency is not taking initiatives in the direction that was foreseen.
I suggest that there is much more hope of seeing the WDA taking a radical approach towards the problems of generating work in Wales if it has the influence of an Assembly which is not dominated by the Conservative Party than if, for at least a large part of the time, the agency is dominated by a Conservative Government here. When there is a Conservative Government here, the Assembly will have an opportunity to show the type of radical approach that is needed to get the policies we want—despite the heavy hand of a centralism from Westminster in a laissez-faire direction.
Whatever the attitude of the hon. Member for Bedwellty towards other aspects of devolution, he and his colleagues are making a very great mistake if they would rather hand over control of the development agency to the Conservative Front Bench than to the people of Wales.

Mr. Ioan Evans: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) that the Minister wants a couple of minutes before midnight for his reply.

Mr. Evans: I shall be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We understand the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) wanting to hand everything over to the Assembly. He disagrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr.


Kinnock) because my hon. Friend believes in the economic unity of the people of these islands. The three Plaid Cymru Members are committed—as they reiterated last weekend—to independence and a separate Wales. They want to get everything possible thrown into the lap of the Welsh Assembly.
I want the Government to reconsider the amendment. When we set up the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales there was nothing said about transferring them to the Assembly. Is it the wish of the three bodies that they be transferred to the Assembly? Their answer to that question might help us in reaching a conclusion.
The three bodies have done a tremendous job. Although the Opposition were opposed to the Welsh Development Agency in the first place, they now recognise the grand job that it has done. In the short time that it has been in existence it has fully justified itself. The $64,000 question that we must ask ourselves is "What is to be the block grant going from this place to the Assembly?" It is clear that there will be increasing demands.
The Welsh Development Agency has done a tremendous job. It played a part in attracting Ford to Wales against corn-petition from Germany and other European countries. It has access to the Treasury. Is that access to be cut off? Is it to be given access to the block grant instead? I hope that the Government will reconsider these matters and accept the amendment. It is a reasonable amendment that has come from another place.

Mr. John Morris: With the leave of the House, I seek to reply to the debate.
It seems that there are two clear divisions. First, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) believes that we are going too far in furthering socialism. He believes that there will be a socialist grip on the Welsh economy. That is a fear that seems to permeate the Opposition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) believes that our proposals have been too limited. He claims that as a result of demarcation there would be an arrest of the flow of funds to the Welsh Development Agency.

I can assure him that there is no such problem.
Tonight I am basking in the congratulations to the agency, to the Development Board for Rural Wales and to the Land Authority for Wales. We set up the three bodies. We are extremely pleased to be able to record that fact. We shall use the commendable record of all three bodies time after time. The deathbed repentance of the Opposition will be used from one end of Wales to the other.
The hon. Member for Conway seemed to throw cold water on the guidelines. The Welsh Development Agency already operates on guidelines. That is how it operates. The guidelines are and will be subject to the annulment of either House of Parliament. Both Houses will be able to monitor their effect. The agency and the other bodies will have to make their annual reports to Parliament on the operations of any activities under the guidelines. The safeguards are there. They are present and they are working. There have been congratulations from the Opposition Benches on the effectiveness of the three bodies.
We are transferring basically the bodies' social responsibilities and ensuring at one and the same time that wider national considerations are protected because of the operation of the existing guidelines and any future guidelines that Parliament seeks to impose.
In all the circumstances I ask the House to reject the proposal of the other place and to return to the original proposal of this place. I believe that we have put forward the right way to approach the problems to protect the wider national interest on the one hand, and at the same time ensured that in the areas where we can devolve properly with safety for wider national considerations we avoid any danger of one part of the country outbidding the other. That interest is fully protected.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 280.

[For Division List No. 294 see c. 749]

Question accordingly agreed to.

It being after midnight, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAK ER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at midnight.

Lords amendments nos. 53 and 54 disagreed to.

Clause 44

PAYMENTS INTO WELSH CONSOLIDATED FUND OUT OF MONEYS PROVIDED BY PARLIAMENT

Lords amendment: no. 56, in page 17, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) The sums paid under subsection (1) above for the purposes of section 58(1) below shall be specified as such.")

Motion made, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. John Smith.]

Question put forthwith.

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 276.

[For Division List No. 295 see c. 755]

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment no. 58 disagreed to.

Lords amendments nos. 55, 57 and 59 to 66 agreed to.

Lords amendments to be further considered this day.—[Mrs. Anne Taylor.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (RENTS)

12.29 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): I beg to move,
That the draft Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.
This draft order has been produced after a lengthy period of consultation and debate. It started with the appointment of the Porter committee of 1973 and that committee's report in 1975. The Government invited comments on the committee's conclusions and recommendations and, in October 1976, produced a consultative paper outlining their proposals. Following a further period of debate on this paper, the proposal for a draft Rent (Northern Ireland) Order was published in November 1977, and in the light of the comments received, interested parties were again asked to comment on possible changes in the proposals. Finally we had, in May, two half-day discussions in the Northern Ireland Committee, during which the proposals were generally welcomed by all the Northern Ireland Members who spoke.
The private rented sector in Northern Ireland has been in steady decline for many years, and now presents some of the Province's most serious and difficult problems. Only 12 per cent. of the housing stock in Northern Ireland is owned by private landlords, 60,000 dwellings out of a total of 480,000. In 1914 the percentage was about 90, and even at the start of the 1960s it was as high as 34 per cent. The houses are in a very poor condition—one half is unfit and should be demolished and replaced as soon as possible; the other half can be saved if it is kept in decent repair and modernised. Because of the long history of rent restriction, 50 per cent. of all rent restricted houses have rents of less than 50p per week and 75 per cent. have rents of less than £1 per week. The typical tenant is elderly and has an income below the Northern Ireland average and cannot, therefore, afford high rents. The typical landlord has inherited a small number of houses and has little or no money to finance expensive repairs, let alone substantial modernisation.
Faced with these problems, my objective is limited—to try to keep habitable as many of these houses as possible. I believe that over the next five to 10 years the private rented sector in Northern Ireland will contract even further. The worst houses—probably over 20,000—will have to be closed, demolished and replaced. Most of these houses are in areas which are already scheduled for redevelopment or housing action area treatment by the Housing Executive. The better houses must be repaired and modernised, and I envisaged this being done in a number of ways.
First, I hope that landlords will play their part with the help of higher rents and of house renovation grants. Second, I would like to see more tenants purchasing their homes from landlords with the help of a home loan from the Housing Executive. Third, I believe that the Housing Executive and housing associations will purchase and modernise many houses, particularly in housing action areas in Belfast. This is the general background to the draft order, and I think that it is important for an understanding of what we are trying to achieve.
There are four basic principles underlying the provisions of the draft order, namely, that tenants should be asked to pay higher rents only if the dwelling is in a reasonable condition; rents in the private sector should be in line with public sector rents; tenants in the private sector on low incomes should get the same financial assistance as tenants in the public sector; and, lastly, that tenants should have greater protection against bad landlords. Let me explain each point in more detail.
I believe that all hon. Members will support the general view that a tenant should be asked to pay higher rents only if his home is in a reasonable condition. After careful consideration of the many points of view, it was decided that rents should be increased only where a house meets a new standard which is set out in schedule 3 to the draft order. This is the existing fitness standard plus the provision of a hot water supply at one point in the house. It is, frankly, a very low standard for 1978—for example, a house would not need to have a toilet or a bath inside the house. The standard was set in an attempt to achieve an extremely difficult balance. If the standard is too low,

tenants would be asked to pay higher rents for poor housing and without any prospect of the houses being improved. If the standard is too high, many landlords would be faced with the prospect of growing bills for repairs and no additional income from rent. If these houses are not repaired and improved, we would be condemning thousands of tenants to continue to live in very bad conditions.
I am, however, convinced that if we are to preserve as many as possible of these houses for as long as possible, we must make more funds available for repairs and improvements. This implies fairly extensive public acquisition and replacement of the worst houses in the private rented sector. In the case of the better quality houses, we must ensure a double injection of funds—from tenants in the form of higher rents and from the State in the form of rent allowances and house renovation grants.
I recognise, of course, that a large number of private rented houses do not reach the necessary standard to command higher rents and I am, therefore, reviewing as a matter of urgency the financial incentives to landlords which will enable them to bring houses up to this standard. I have not yet completed this review. But I can tell the House that I am considering 100 per cent. repair grants for the worst houses in order to ensure that they can at least be made windproof and waterproof.
Whether a house reaches the regulated tenancy standard will be determined initially by using a net annual value of £60 as a general guideline. If the net annual value of a house is below £60, the landlord cannot increase the rent until he gets a regulated rent certificate from the district council. If the house has a net annual value of £60 or more, the tenant can have the rent frozen if the district council issues a restricted rent certificate. In the proposal for a draft order, the guideline was set at £45, but I am convinced that the onus should as often as possible be on the more able party—the landlord —and that it would therefore be better to set the guideline at a net annual value of £60.
The second principle which I have used is that rents in the private sector should be in line with public sector rents. This is already the policy which is applied to housing association rents in Northern Ireland. It is essential, if we are to save the


best private rented houses, that rents be increased without delay. For that reason, I have decided that initially the new rent will be arrived at by multiplying the net annual value by two and a half—a figure chosen following an examination of the rents and net annual values of comparable Executive houses. If the landlord or the tenant feels that the multiplier rent is wrong, he may appeal to a rent assessment committee, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, to have an appropriate rent fixed. Under article 33 the Department will also be able to prescribe increases from time to time to take account of changes in Housing Executive rents, the cost of repairs and any other relevant factors.
The third principle which I am seeking to follow is that private sector tenants should have the same assistance in paying rent as Housing Executive tenants enjoy. Accordingly, part X would introduce rent allowances. From the evidence which we have about the income of private sector tenants, it would appear that around 60 per cent. will be eligible for help with their rent either through supplementary benefits or the new rent allowances. Thus, the new levels of rent which would follow from the legislation should have an impact only on tenants who have reasonable incomes. I shall be concerned to ensure that all possible steps are taken to inform tenants about the availabilty of rent allowances.
The fourth principle which I am following is that tenants should have protection against bad landlords. Parts VIII and IX dealing with premiums and harassment of tenants are based on current law in Great Britain. There is very little evidence of tenants in Northern Ireland being exploited by unscrupulous landlords,, and the major difficulties have arisen over repairs, largely due to the very low rent levels which have not given landlords the income to pay for repairs. Now that rents are to be increased, the legislation will include in part VII a clearer definition of the responsibilities of landlords and tenants and give district councils new powers to require landlords to carry out repairs.
Whilst I do not foresee much further investment by landlords in rented accommodation in the lower half of the market, I see a continuing place for a small

private rented sector, and I shall do all I can to encourage this. I do not therefore propose to bring into rent control furnished accommodation, houses built for renting since 1956 and houses converted for flats since 1956. I should of course have to look at this again if serious abuses were brought to my attention. At present, houses which have a valuation at 1939 values of £26 and over become decontrolled on vacant possession. To parallel, this, the draft order will free from control dwellings with a net annual value of £140 or more where the landlord obtains vacant possession.
The new legislation is complex, and I am therefore examining what steps can be taken to help tenants understand it and to ensure that they are able to take the necessary action to benefit from its provisions.
The proposals will, I believe, help to preserve in use many of the private rented houses in Northern Ireland. I have striven to find a reasonable balance between all the conflicting interests which are involved. However, it will be my intention to monitor closely the impact of this legislation and the underlying policies and to make whatever adjustments may prove to be necessary.

12.40 a.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I hope that it will be in order, in the presence of the Secretary of State —and we are very glad that he is here to attend the debate on this important order—and, indeed, in the presence of the Under-Secretary who has just addressed the House, if we express our sympathy with and concern about the other Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and hope that we shall have better news of his health.
At the first of the two meetings of the Northern Ireland Committee on this order, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) expressed the hope that the legislation would have the broad support of all parties, and it has our support. We are reaching the conclusion of a long journey, because as the Minister reminded us, five years have passed since the Porter committee was set up. Certainly changes have been made in the order since its publication last year, but still it embodies most of the Porter recommendations. We


should like to congratulate and thank those who worked on that committee.
The order should make possible the survival and improvement of part of the private rented sector, but we understand it is the assumption of the Minister that by the mid-1980s half of the present private rented sector will have passed into the ownership of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive or of housing associations. We Conservatives particularly favour properly conducted housing associations. I trust that the Minister would agree that there should be no unnecessary demolition and that no more housing than is necessary should pass out of the private into the public sector.
In the Northern Ireland Committee, all hon. Members who sit for Ulster constituencies welcome the conferring of new responsibilities on district councils. It was the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who said,
In common with others, I welcome the powers that have been given to local authorities to determine the condition—the fitness or otherwise—of the various properties".[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 17th May 1978; c. 29.]
Originally, it had been intended to entrust the new duties to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, but we believe that the Government were right to change their mind after representations. Yet in the debate in the Northern Ireland Committee, some confusion arose over the longer term. On 24th May, the Under-Secretary of State undertook that there would be a continuing role for district councils. He also implied that they would be on a year's probation. Admittedly he added,
I am quite sure that the scheme will be a success
and that
We shall proceed on the basis of permanency".—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 17th May 1978; c. 52.]
Perhaps the Minister could tonight be a little more precise about where he stands. I wondered whether it was necessary in that earlier discussion to treat district councils in these somewhat condescending tones.
I am delighted to hear that the Minister is reviewing the incentives to be given to landlords. He will know that in Great Britain, landlords in housing action areas can claim grants to cover 90 per cent. of

the cost of improvements up to £3,200 under the 1974 Housing Act. Some of us in the Northern Ireland Committee spoke of the need to bring the facilities of this legislation to the notice of those concerned. I am glad that the Minister has spoken about publicity tonight.
It has been difficult to induce tenants in Great Britain to apply for rebates. Indeed, I understand that only 55 per cent. of tenants on this side of the water who are entitled to these rebates actually apply for them. But the Minister has shown himself keenly aware of this problem, and I have no doubt that a publicity campaign of a suitable kind is being prepared to make widely known this new deal for landlords and tenants in Northern Ireland. This order rightly imposes obligations on both, but to both its offers opportunities.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. John Carson: I would like to associate my colleagues and myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) regarding the absent Under-Secretary of State. We sincerely wish him a very speedy recovery.
During the debate in the Northern Ireland Committee some weeks ago my colleagues and I extended a warm general welcome to the proposal contained in the order. I am happy to do so again this morning. My colleagues and I have consistently sought parity between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and since the effect of the order will be to bring the proposals for meeting the problems of Northern Ireland broadly into line with those of Great Britain we are bound, in principle, to support it.
The policy of the Ulster Unionist Party on the need for the reform of local government in Northern Ireland is well known, so hon. Members will understand why we particularly welcome a decision to empower the district councils in Northern Ireland to certify whether houses meet the standards set up in the order. It seems that the original suggestion was that this function should be given to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. We were very much opposed to that suggestion, first, because the Housing Executive has great difficulty in fulfilling its


present role—we, as public representatives, know that very well, and experience it day after day in Northern Ireland—and, secondly, because this is a function with which district councils in the Province are well equipped to deal.
I do not know whether this represents the shape of things to come, but it is worth noting that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) also welcomed the decision to give new responsibility to district councils. We hope that this will be a lead for the SDLP to realise that more power should be given to district councils in Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I should mention at this stage that during the debate in Committee we paid tribute to the Minister for the lengthy period of consultation and discussion that took place on many of these matters with the Belfast city council and other councils throughout Northern Ireland. Clarification on some matters was sought by my colleagues in the Committee, and some answers were given by the Minister. Many points were raised by myself and my colleagues but, unfortunately, time ran out and the Minister did not give answers to all those questions during the four sittings of the Committee on the draft order.
I refer to one item, when we asked the Minister about the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, during the fourth sitting of the Committee, on 17th May 1978, when I said:
The order says that the rent assessment committees are charged to have regard to rents for comparable Housing Executive houses. I ask the Minister who is responsible for fixing Housing Executive rents?"—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee; 17th May 1978, c. 34.]
There seem to be two standards. I am sure that the Minister knows what I mean when I say that. There is a standard for the public sector and another for the private sector.
When the right hon. Gentleman who is now Minister of State was responsible for housing in Northern Ireland he was very concerned—and I am sure that the present Minister shares that concern—about the low rents in the private sector. It is on record that in the Committee the Minister of State said that the rents of many houses in the private sector were not even the price of a packet of cigarettes. Yet since the Porter report was first

mooted in the House—almost five years ago—we have had five rent rises in the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The latest rise was this month.
The Minister who is responsible for housing in Northern Ireland must agree that if action on rent rises had been taken as quickly in the private rented sector as it was in the public sector, many of the redevelopment areas would not be blighted today by vandals, or wrecked by the lack of landlords with finance to carry out repairs. Tenants would not have been intimidated to move away from those areas in which they were born, brought up, and had lived for many years.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Perhaps the hon. Member would agree that the Minister's speech was the most eloquent condemnation of rent control that has been heard in this House for many years. The whole position in Northern Ireland has been created largely by Government interference.

Mr. Carson: I accept what the hon. and learned Member says. It was a complete scandal that private landlords were made to carry out repairs without finance being made available. This meant that their property was not a viable proposition. I remind the Minister that it would be well for him and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to put their own house in order now over the rents of public sector houses in the Province.
I extend to the Minister a cordial invitation to see the conditions in which people are living—the property that has been neglected by landlords because they have not had the finance to maintain houses in proper order or to bring them up to standard. I hope that he will come to my constituency and see the conditions in which the people are being forced to live in such houses. I can think of many examples, but I will not detain the House for too long. The Minister knows well that we could talk until day break about housing in Northern Ireland, but I will not make such suggestions tonight.
I want to draw attention to article 65(1) of the order which reads:
Any document required or authorised by this Order to be served on a landlord of a dwelling house, shall be deemed to be duly served on him if it is served—(a) on any agent of the landlord named as such in the rent book; or (b) on the person who receives the rent on the dwelling-house.


I consider this article to be restrictive. It could prove to be of little value if an agent gave up the agency of a dwelling or if a landlord ceased to collect rent. This is happening in my constituency at present.
Many of my constituents are living in the privately rented sector in accommodation which the landlord has abandoned. I know that the Minister knows of such properties. The agent often ceases to collect the rent because he is not receiving his commission, and he is no longer responsible for property which he may have handled for many years. Since repairs cannot be carried out because the agent says that he is no longer responsible for the property, many people suffer.
It will be noted that there is no cover for such people. I suggest to the Minister that he should insert after the word "received" in article 65(1)(b) of the order as it was in Committee the words "or would receive". This would give protection to the tenant who lives in that type of property, even though the agent refuses to accept responsibility.
The Minister says that he wants to protect the tenants in the privately rented sector. I fully endorse that view, but I also want to protect the landlord. The wording which I suggest would give such protection.
There was some disagreement in Committee over the function of the Belfast city council. The Minister did not give a categoric assurance that the certification of fitness for houses would be an ongoing function for that council. I hope that we shall have such an assurance at the end of this debate. I carefully examined the replies given by the Minister to the Committee. He said that if the arrangement worked out, it would possibly be an ongoing function, and he saw no reason why it should not be continued after one year. The people whom we represent in Northern Ireland would like an assurance on this point. I am sure that other contributors to this debate will be pressing the Minister to give an assurance that the giving of fitness certificates will be a continuing function of the district councils in the privately rented sector.
I should like to see the Northern Ireland Housing Executive given the responsibility to take over vacant houses in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will also apply to houses which are occupied

but which have been abandoned by the landlord. This is not now the procedure in Northern Ireland. There are houses which are occupied, but about which neither landlords nor agents want to know anything. Those who are paying rent have no guarantee about the condition of that accommodation in the following year. If slates come off the roof and the property deteriorates and nobody accepts responsibility, I should like to see the Housing Executive in a position to step in and take over such occupied houses. That would give people the assurance that they can continue to live in those houses and that they will be maintained in proper order. I hope that the order will be successful.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: We are returning to an order which we have previously welcomed in a general way but on which we had specific criticisms. Many of the criticisms made in Committee have been met and there have been a vast number of changes since the burial of the last order after those Committee proceedings and its resurrection tonight. We welcome most of the changes.
The order will bring a sense of justice and reality into the private rented sector in Northern Ireland, and that will be widely welcomed within the community. I await the further efforts of the Minister to improve the lot of the isolated rural properties and the costly improvements that some of them need. A special case must be met there. Nothing has been done to take care of that problem, but we live in hope.
The new rateable valuation of £140, over which tenancies will not be protected, replaces the £26 rateable valuation at 1939 levels, but can the Minister tell us whether the new figure will be the deciding factor in the protection or otherwise of a tenancy? It seems that we are keeping two ways—one on the basis of age and one on the basis of rateable valuation—of deciding whether a tenancy in the private rented sector should be controlled. Some move should be made, if not now, certainly in the near future, towards a single method of determining into which categories dwellings should fall. Having two methods of arriving at a decision on a tenancy will serve only to confuse the landlords and the tenants.


Confusion is never welcome and it leads to friction.
Are the powers given to courts in articles 13 and 14 in regard to gaining possession of dwellings greater or less than the powers given to courts under section 1 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946, which is the normal vehicle used for proceeding against squatters and tenants who do not pay their rent? I understand that under the 1946 Act, a court may grant a warrant for possession but that it remains in force for only three months. I am sure that the Minister is as aware as we are that there are many stratagems for getting round this provision, and the unfortunate landlord who is saddled with a bad tenant finds that it is nearly impossible to get rid of him. When the squatter or tenant is taken to court, fines are very small.
In Belfast, fines of 5p, 10p and 25p are common. Tenants promise to pay and court orders are made which are carried out for a short period, but when they cease the unfortunate landlord has to go through the whole pitiful and apparently pointless exercise again. Such a situation serves only to bring the law into disrepute, especially in Northern Ireland where there are areas in which eviction officers cannot operate freely. I wonder whether the law is being strengthened in the order or whether we shall find ourselves on the same old merry-go-round again.
In Committee I asked the Minister about the £60 valuation. I did not receive an answer. I hope that he will be able to give the answer tonight, or tell me that he will write. How many dwellings owned by the Housing Executive have net annual valuations of £60 or under? I believe that they are a fairly high proportion of its stock. I wonder what the general public and the owners of dwellings will say when they discovered that the Executive is still to have one application of the law applied to it while another application is to apply to the person who lives in or owns private accommodation. That is something that should be cleared up, and I hope that the Minister will address his mind to it.
I have made some brief points and there are many more that will be raised

by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall restrict myself to the few matters that I have mentioned and I hope for an answer this morning or in writing.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: By any standards this is a major piece of legislation. It constitutes virtually a new rented housing code for Northern Ireland. It was entirely right not only that it should be the subject of a long preparatory period since the Porter report but that the order itself should have been under examination for many months.
The order has been subjected parliamentarily to the procedure of being considered in proposal form in the Northern Ireland Committee. There were two sittings in Committee and a total of five hours devoted to it. That has enabled us to deal with it relatively briefly in its final form on the Floor of the House. However, I must say—I am sure that the Minister would not dissent—that it would be wrong for an order of this importance—that is, substantive legislation of the first class—not to be passed finally upon the Floor of the House.
I recognise the assistance that the Minister and his Department have given to those who were studying the order both in the comment stage before proposals and before and after the discussion of the order in Northern Ireland Committee, especially the statistical material that was produced and that has been extremely valuable in working out the purport and effect of the order.
Rent restriction throughout the United Kingdom has been responsible over the past two or three generations for an incalculable total of misery. It is natural that we should think of rent restriction initially from the point of view of its effect upon the landlord. Landlords, many of them in no better circumstances than tenants, have suffered grievously from it. However, the total volume of deprivation that has been imposed upon tenants over the years since the inception of rent restriction in 1915 is beyond all computation.
However, it is not restriction in itself that has produced that effect but the fatal combination of restriction with inflation. Had the value of money remained what it was in 1975, no doubt the fixing of rent restriction at that early stage would have


proved harmless. But it has been the deterioration—not steady, but ongoing—of the value of money, combined with the reluctance of Parliament to adjust the law on rent restriction, that has entailed these massive misfortunes—nowhere probably better to be observed than in Northern Ireland—upon the occupiers of houses.
In the interval between the two wars. one of the few beneficial side effects of deflation was that it brought restricted rents nearer to current values again as the 20 years proceeded. Certainly one of the brighter features of those years—the immense improvement in housing conditions and the explosion of house building—was, in part at least, a side effect of the rise in the value of money which was experienced in the middle of that period.
This is not a time of the morning for lengthy reminiscence, but I cannot help recalling that it fell to me in 1956, as a Parliamentary Secretary, to put before the House the first attempt since 1939 to deal with the problems of rent restriction. I mention that now not for the sake of reminiscence, but because the contrast is instructive in understanding what the order can and cannot do.
The method adopted at that relatively early time was the same as the basic method in the order. It was to adopt a rateable value standard in relation to which permissible rents would be raised, but to link the permission to raise the rent with a guarantee of placing or maintaining of the property in decent and habitable condition. That was the basic principle from the start. The same principle underlies the framework of the order.
What went wrong was that, so far from inflation slowing down after the Act came into force in 1957, it almost steadily accelerated from that day to this. Therefore, the attempt to bring rents back into line with current values—without which there can be no maintenance of the existing stock of housing and without which the addition to that stock is severely stunted —was completely frustrated. I know that the same could be true of the proposals 20 and more years ago in Northern Ireland under the then Northern Ireland Administration to remedy the evils of an obsolete rent restriction regime,
If this measure had been adopted and had succeeded on either side of the water

20 years ago, an immense quantity of decent housing, which has now lapsed into deplorable condition and even been destroyed, could have been saved and rendered service for many years still. What is more—this point was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson)—the pattern of our cities would not have had to be so drastically and, in some ways, inhumanly altered as it has had to be as a result of the total desuetude of the rented accommodation.
The Under-Secretary of State admitted that we are now bringing forward this measure with a much more modest aim. No longer can we aim at bringing restricted rents into relation with current values. We are aiming at something which is much more limited than that. The percentage figures for rented housing which the Under-Secretary quoted at the beginning of the debate for various points in the past compared with the 12 per cent. at present —half of which must go in the foreseeable future—illustrate the limitations on the benefit which this order can confer.
Nevertheless, one should not underestimate the improvement of conditions for thousands of families which this order should bring about. Even where the houses have to go within the next 10 years, the conditions of those who live in them should, in many cases, be improved as result of the order. There will be a modest amount of housing and of development which can be saved and rendered tenantable, perhaps for the lifetime of those now living in it, as a result of the order.
The Minister has had instruments to use which were not available 10 or 20 years ago. Without those instruments the objects of the order would be unattainable. He has been able to use an up-to-date rateable valuation. It would have been impossible to introduce the order and to attempt to rationalise permitted rents unless we had had the revaluation which came into effect 18 months ago—certainly in the last year or two. That action was not popular. Revaluation for rating seldom is popular. But it might as well be put on record that without that revaluation we could not now be approaching the task by the method which the order applies.
The Minister was good enough to supply me with most interesting information about the relationship between rateable values and Housing Executive house rents. The principle at which we are aiming is to bring private rents into line with comparable Housing Executive rents, and to do so by means of the yardstick of rateable value.
The interesting thing which the statistics disclose is that for different sizes of house, for different ranges of rateable value, the ratio between rateable value and Housing Executive rents varies widely. After debate and correspondence I think that the Minister and I agreed that ideally we should have a different multiplier for the different bands of housing.
He has conceded that; but I must tell him candidly that after reflecting upon it, I have been obliged to concede that for the simple purpose which the multiplier has—just to start the new process off—it would have been too elaborate to attempt the greater accuracy which would have been obtained by having a different multiplier for three or four bands of housing.
We are making a rough and ready approach to the equation of private rents with Housing Executive rents. Perhaps it is worth recognising that another agonising process which is going on—namely, the rationalisation of Housing Executive rents—is also contributing to provide the basis for the operation which this order will bring about.
Thus, the first instrument which the Minister has is the mechanical instrument of rateable value and Housing Executive rents and the ratio between them. He has, secondly, a working rent assessment machinery which will enable the rough and ready approximations of the initial upgrading of rents to be refined and to be kept up to date as time goes by, because it is no use doing something of this kind and then just walking away and leaving it to be obliterated again by the effect of inflation. The existence of a rent assessment machinery will be the means whereby we shall be able to avoid ever again falling into the pit dug by the process of inflation.
Thirdly, from the point of view of the tenant, there are available now the rent allowances, which make it possible for

rents to be increased with the knowledge that nevertheless the increase in the rent which is necessary to preserve and maintain the housing will not inflict hardship upon tenants, especially elderly tenants and those on small incomes. So the rent allowance system is an integral part of the machinery which this order sets up.
Finally, from the point of view of the landlord, there is the system of grants for repair and rehabilitation. The Minister said that he is prepared to go up to 100 per cent. grants for landlords who avail themselves of the opportunity which this order gives. I think that a figure such as that shows how little profit there is for the landlord—even the landlord of houses put into tenantable repair—in the rents which will be permissible in terms of this order.
Certainly we would not on either side of the House be contemplating 100 per cent. grants for the landlord in order to put the houses into the state of repair necessary to claim the extra rent if that was going to be the basis of private profit. In fact it will be the basis of improved conditions for the tenant. This is simply in a sense a channel through which assistance in improving his conditions is conveyed to the tenant.
The Minister said that he had not yet arrived at his conclusion as to what the level of rents would be, but I should like to press him on this—not to name the date tonight, but to say to him that the success of this operation will depend considerably upon the impetus with which it starts, and it will not have that impetus unless the full new grants are available and known when the order comes into force.
So I hope that he will ensure that the new range of grants is not only available but fully publicised in advance of the coming into force of the order. The timing of this order is a matter of importance because there is a psychological element in the campaign upon which the Northern Ireland Office has to engage if we are to get the benefits out of this order that we ought to get.
The Minister mentioned that some houses in private ownership will still continue to pass out of control—that those which are out of control will not be brought back into control again and that, with change of tenancy, houses in the


higher rateable value bracket will pass out of control. I am grateful to him for having arrived at this conclusion. It is a point which I pressed upon him from the early stages of consideration, and I did so partly from a recollection of 20 years earlier, that it is the prospect of at any rate some houses in the private sector—however relatively few—coming into the market and being let at market rents which in a sense sustains and gives a contact with reality to the whole operation. So I am delighted that he has done this and I am sure that he will not regret it.
The success of this order in attaining its modest but important aims will depend considerably upon the initial impetus that is given to it. That brings me to the last matter that I want to stress, which is information. Ideally, every landlord and every tenant who could benefit as a result of the order ought to be made aware of it in simple terms which he can understand. He ought to be made aware of his rights, his safeguards and his opportunities.
I suggest that the Department has several channels available for doing this. I suggest, if it is not already done, that the rating system should be used as an adjunct to the business of conveying this information—of propaganda, I am prepared to say. I suggest that the next rate demands which go out to privately owned houses after the order comes into force should be accompanied by a well-designed leaflet addressed to the tenant, or to the landlord where he is the recipient, setting out the provisions of the order and the method by which landlords and tenants can avail themselves of the opportunities. The rate demands have to go out and we may as well ride on the back of them and use them as a means, at the most susceptible moment, which is when people are being asked to pay rates, of getting the message across.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Would my right hon. Friend consider adding to the catalogue of those who require information those tenants who now live in property of which agents have divested themselves? Those people will find themselves in a no man's land requiring information about who would be responsible in the immediate future for repairs and the paying of rent.

Mr. Powell: Yes. That was a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North. But the tenants occupying those houses will, alas, require more than information.
However, following the same train of thought I suggest to the Under-Secretary that he devotes his ingenuity to finding as many channels as possible whereby tenants can be reached with this information. In many cases they will be required to take the initiative. It will lie with the landlord in some cases and with the tenant in others, but tenant and landlord are not necessarily at arm's length.
We want to saturate the potential market with information about what the order has to offer as soon as possible after it comes into operation. So, whether we get from the order the advantages which even at this late stage in the old and evil story of rent restriction it still has to offer will very much depend upon the keenness with which the Department operates it.
I attach to the order my personal good wishes, as well as those of my hon. Friends. I hope that even at this stage the implementation of the order will bring considerable comfort and alleviation of conditions to thousands of occupiers of houses in town and country in Northern Ireland.

1.29 a.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I associate myself with the remarks made by the spokesman for the Opposition and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) in regard to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). I trust that we shall have a good report concerning his health and that he will soon be back to carry out the duties of his office.
No sane person could be in disagreement with the dedication of the people of Northern Ireland to getting rid of direct rule as quickly as possible. The fact that this debate is taking place at 1.30 a.m. is an indication of the system under which Northern Ireland is governed. We have before us a very hefty order, which undertakes to repeal certain Acts and to amend certain other Acts. At 1.30 in the morning we are expected, I suppose,


to be as brief as we can within the period given to us. I suppose that we should be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table, in that we are given more than an hour and a half to speak on this order.
In introducing the order, the Minister told us that he regretted that the standard set is deplorably low for 1978, and so it is. But one would think that, when that standard is set, it would be set in such a rigid manner that there would be no deviating from it. However, when we examine the order we find that there is a considerable amount of room for manoeuvre.
I refer to schedule 3. It talks about
satisfactory provision for natural lighting and for ventilation.
It does not define what that is. It goes on to talk about
satisfactory facilities for the storage and preparation of food within the house.
It does not define what those are either.
The schedule then contains this requirement:
its internal arrangement is satisfactory.
That could leave room for quite a wide discussion about whether the internal arrangement of any house is satisfactory. Many housewives would disagree about what is satisfactory in regard to the internal arrangement of a house.
But the amazing condition is this:
it has a water closet available for the exclusive use of the occupants of the dwelling-house.
It does not say that it should be within the curtilage of the house. That water closet could be anywhere. One could need to take a bicycle ride to reach it. The schedule does not define this.
I have had a very heavy lobby from the health authorities in Northern Ireland pointing out to me that, if we are to have this low standard, it should be absolutely rigid and that where this water closet should be situated and the maximum permissible distance from the house should be defined.
What is more—I raised this matter in Committee, and the Minister said that he would think about it—we should consider the safety aspects of the house, such as whether it should have one door

or two doors. One would have thought that one of the standards that would have been required would have been two doors.
In the rural areas we have quite a large number of houses which have only one door. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) enlarged on this point in Committee. We have a whole estate of houses in Carrickfergus which have only one door. That does not come up to any safety standard. Surely one of the conditions, even under a low standard, for this regulated tenancy should have taken in this matter of two doors. The Minister promised that he would look into the matter. He probably did so but felt that he could not agree. It would seem that it is a very low standard indeed and that it does not even have the priority that should be given to safety standards.
I want to stress the importance of these standards being made rigid so that there will be no leeway and that there should be a proper definition of what the internal arrangements of a house should be and what is reckoned to be satisfactory and what is reckoned to be adequate.
Then there is the question of drainage. Many of these houses in the rural districts have only soakaways. Are these soakaways to be accepted as satisfactory? An argument can arise, especially when it comes to the matter of grants. If the grant is to be 100 per cent., which we welcome, this is not giving something to the landlord because rather it will help the tenant. The landlord will not make money out of a 100 per cent. grant to put the house into a state in which it can be lived in with at least some degree of comfort. I think that the Minister needs to face up to that matter.
In Committee there was quite a discussion on the one-year provision in regard to the local council's authority. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked:
Will the Minister clear up straight away a matter which has arisen several times? The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to a one-year trial period, as he called it—but at any rate a one-year period of initial operation. I understood the Minister to say that it was his intention, when the draft order is laid, that the limitation to one year will be withdrawn, and that there will be a permanent function in the draft order. It would be of help to the Committee if the Minister would clear that up at this stage.


The Under-Secretary of State replied:
I am surprised that what I said was not fully accepted. I said that there would be a continuing role for district councils following the passing of the order. I cannot be more specific than that. I have already given the undertaking to Belfast City Council in any event, before coming to this Committee.
Again, when I asked about the continuing rule, he replied:
That is precisely what I am saying, and I am now saying it for the third time."—[Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 24th May 1978; c. 75–6.]
So I concluded that the year would not be mentioned, but when I looked at the order I found that the year was still in it. Article 8 says:
A district council shall, if an application in that behalf is made to it within one year after the commencement of this Order.
and so on. So the year is still retained in the order. I should like the Minister to clarify the matter now and let us know if, whether the application is made within a year or not, the council will be the responsible authority for dealing with this matter. The point needs to be cleared up. I think the Minister felt that we were labouring something that did not need to be laboured, but we find that the year is still mentioned in the order.
Another important matter that must be raised is the yardstick of the Housing Executive for rents. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that a very large number of the district councils have already passed a resolution objecting to the raising of the rents of Housing Executive houses, for the simple reason that these houses are not up to the required standard. It is the policy of the Housing Executive when it raises its rents to do so irrespective of the standard.
I am thinking now of two houses on the border of the town of Ballymoney. A stone's throw from these two cottages there is a private development, with all the amenities. The electricity runs down the road, the water runs down the road, and yet within a stone's throw of Ballymoney these two cottages have neither electric light nor a piped water supply or any amenities whatsoever, yet the rents of those two cottages are going up, and the occupants have been told that they are going up in anticipation that they will have these facilities. This is 1978. These two cottages are not away on the back side of the desert but within the Bally-

money boundary, and they are also beside all the facilities, yet the rents are going up. Is that to be the yardstick which is to be used in regard to these rents?
I think that there is something wrong with saying that the Housing Executive should be the standard, because there are really two standards. The Housing Executive is busy closing down houses and declaring them unfit for human habitation in order to get on with its vesting of certain areas. A percentage of houses in certain areas must be declared unfit in order that the Housing Executive can get on which its redevelopment, yet it has property which is worse than that which it is condemning and closing, and the rents of that property are being put up. The Minister must take this into consideration when asking us to approve an order which says that the standard is to be that of the Housing Executive.
In some areas the Housing Executive is attempting to bring houses up to standard, and yet the amazing thing is that there are cottages and houses in my constituency, with bathrooms and all the facilities, which will in some cases have less rent to pay than houses which have none of these facilities. This rationalisation of rents, as worked out by the Housing Executive, amazes me. I have taken up these cases with the Housing Executive and argued with the Executive about them. Now I find that this is to be the standard in the private sector. It seems to me that it is not the right way to deal with these rents and the level at which they should be set.
The Housing Executive, as the public landlord in Northern Ireland, has spieled to the people of Northern Ireland. The majority of the elected representatives and the only elected bodies that we have in Northern Ireland are opposed to these rent rises of the Housing Executive because of the standard and the state of the houses. Let no one come to this House and tell this House that the Housing Executive is doing a good job, because the fact is that the Housing Executive is doing a very bad job, especially in the realm of repairs. The Minister admitted that in the Committee. I feel that it is a wrong policy to make the Housing Executive rents the standard, and I feel that this is where the Minister's order will come unstuck. These points were made in the Northern Ireland Committee, but


evidently they fell upon deaf ears and there is no change in the order.
I think that every Member from Northern Ireland gives a general welcome to the order, but these are some of the points at which the Minister, before the order was finalised, should have taken a hard and close look. Evidently these are not matters on which the hon. Gentleman was prepared to take action. If he had taken action along the lines suggested in the Northern Ireland Committee, the order would have been more successfully worked out.
In Northern Ireland we have houses that are in a very bad state of repair. Any suggestion, any scheme, any plan to improve them is most welcome. But the Minister should remember that in working out this scheme he should pay at least some attention to the elected representatives from Northern Ireland when they put these matters to him.
There are hon. Members from Northern Ireland who did not think it worth while to stay for this debate. Some of them said to me "What is the use? We have put these matters before, and they have not been heeded, so why should we press the Minister again at this hour of the morning, when what we say will fall on deaf ears?"
The Minister should be prepared to look more closely at the suggestions made in the Committee, especially the main suggestions. I regret that tonight he has not seen his way to give on any of them and that the order has not met the wishes generally expressed in the Committee.

1.46 a.m.

Mr. Carter: May I first thank all hon. Members who have expressed concern for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I shall pass those expressions of concern on to my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison), in a contribution which was broadly one of welcome for the provisions, hoped that there would be no unnecessary demolition. The order's objective is to retain as much as possible of the property that we have left in the private sector in a good state of repair so that it can be habitable, providing useful accommodation for as many people as possible. We shall therefore

naturally try to retain as much of the property as we can.
To all hon. Members who spoke about the question of the permanency of powers for local authorities, I repeat what I said three times in the Northern Ireland Committee. This is a permanent feature. There is no going back on any previous statement. There is a permanent role for the local authorities in this field in Northern Ireland.
I must say in passing that it will be for the local authorities to prove that they can do the job. People have held out to me and the Department the prospect that the local authorities are capable and willing and prepared to do the job, and I sincerely hope that they will do it. The councillors will play a vital role. It is for them to ensure that their officials go about the task of protecting tenants and implementing this legislation. It is not for my Department.

Mr. Powell: So the hon. Gentleman is in fact saying that the reference to the one year in article 8 is a limitation not on the duration of the powers of the district councils but upon the application by the parties under that article. Is that the case?

Mr. Carter: Perhaps I may put on record an accurate description of what I have just said and the relevance of the one year to it. Article 8 has the specific function of creating a restricted tenancy. Such a tenancy can be created only during the first year. However, this does not mean that the council function ceases after one year. Article 63 provides for a district council to inspect a house at any time to see whether it is up to standard. I hope that that satisfies hon. Members on that matter.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What happens, however, if in the Minister's opinion district councils are not measuring up to his expectations and are not discharging these responsibilities well? Does he propose to remove responsibilities?

Mr. Carter: I am looking on the optimistic side. We have taken this decision on the basis of recommendations that have been made by hon. Members and by Belfast city council, which will bear the brunt of the role of inspection and control. I sincerely hope that the whole scheme is a success. Clearly, if the order


were not being properly implemented we should have to look at it once again. However, I do not anticipate that at all.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) complained, as did several other hon. Members, about the lateness of this legislation and said that it should have come about earlier. At least, I took him to be saying that. He suggested that had we taken action earlier perhaps some of the houses which we have lost would have been saved. I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman. In fact, since publication of the Porter report, I think that we have acted with considerable speed. We had to go through a necessary process of consultation, which I am sure would have been welcomed by hon. Members. I do not think that the Department can be accused of being at all laggard in coming forward with the necessary legislation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of delivering communications to both landlords and tenants. I accept that that is a problem. But in the course of the first year or so, or maybe longer, we shall have to discover precisely what sort of problem that poses. We know that there are absentee landlords, and this problem will have to be dealt with. Only in the process of the operation can we discover just what sort of a problem that poses. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the Housing Executive should step in at the earliest possible moment and take over houses which were abandoned by landlords and were not being maintained. That is the intention of the order. Indeed, as has been pointed out, if we cannot obtain contact with landlords the Housing Executive will clearly have to step in to save the properties which are still capable of being saved.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said that we should have only one unregulated tenancy area. That is precisely what the order aims at. We are within the band of NAV that we have selected—that is, above £60—for creating an area of regulation, and everything which falls outside that will either be decontrolled or will fall into the hands of the Housing Executive. What we are attempting to do is to create one single area in Northern Ireland of private rented property which is regulated.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the problems of eviction. The process of eviction is not changing at all with the passing of the order. A landlord will still have to go to a county court, and if the specified conditions which are laid down in the order are not being complied with the court will produce an eviction order. I am sure that the court will see that that order is carried out in a speedy fashion. The hon. Gentleman also wanted to know how many houses in the £60 NAV bracket were in the ownership of the Housing Executive. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information tonight but I shall write to him with the information which he requested.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) thanked myself and the Department for having provided him with a whole range of information and statistical evidence. Clearly, on a piece of legislation as important and as complex as this, the Department had to do whatever it could to provide people concerned, including Members of Parliament, with as much information as possible. I am glad that we have been successful in at least one small area.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to refer to the use of rent control. I think that we could have a quite lengthy discussion on the philosophy of rent control and its effects, real or imagined. The truth is that times have changed in Northern Ireland. We no longer have a housing shortage, but it is certainly true to say in any event that the problems of housing in the private rented sector in particular in Northern Ireland are not at all like those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member concluded with a welcome for the 100 per cent, grant proposal. I shall be looking for some sort of coincidence with the introduction of the order and an announcement about the 100 per cent. grant. I fully accept the right hon. Member's point. It clearly would not be to anybody's advantage—tenant or landlord—if we were to produce some form of gap between the introduction of the order and the announcement of the 100 per cent. grant. He concluded on the note, which he has stressed before, that we should have as wide a range of publicity as possible. The point that he particularly referred to was the sending of notices with the rate demands; I


mentioned that myself in Committee. We shall do as much as we conceivably can to make everybody aware of what is contained in the order, what people's rights are and, indeed, what their obligations are, tenant and landlord alike.

Mr. Wm Ross: I heard the Minister say a few moments ago that there was no longer a housing shortage in Northern Ireland. In those circumstances can he tell us the difference between the terms "housing demand" and "housing desire", which are the terms that we hear bandied about in Housing Executive offices nowadays?

Mr. Carter: That is an open-ended argument. I shall not go into it tonight. We should all like to live in palaces in 40 or 50 acres of ground. The plain fact of the matter is that we have limited resources, although I am bound to say that in Northern Ireland resources in housing are not our problem. We have a sufficiency in houses and in many parts of the Province, particularly in some parts of Belfast, we have a surplus. The trouble is, as I have told the House before and as I said in Committee, that the surpluses are in the wrong place.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in what I thought was something of a departure from the general welcome that he gave to the order in Committee, criticised us for sitting here at almost 2 o'clock in the morning—I I think that it was about half-past 1 o'clock when he was speaking. He may have forgotten that we had already spent five hours on this order, at a far more congenial time of the day—from halfpast 10 till 1 o'clock. I think that that is a particularly generous amount of time to have spent on an order of this kind—far more generous, in fact, than would have been spent on a good deal of other Northern Ireland legislation.
The hon. Member criticised the standard as being too low. Perhaps it is, but that standard is set against the general problem of what is left of the private rented sector in Northern Ireland, and we are making a stab—that is all that we are making at the moment; we hope that it is a productive stab—at retaining what is left of the private rented sector. I am bound to say at the same time that even though these standards are low, if they

are disputed, in terms of a higher rent, an appeal is possible. If the rent assessment committee accepts the proposition that two doors are required, or that a toilet should be no further than five metres from the front or back door, that clearly will make an impact in terms of any rent that is finally set.
That is not to say that standards are set in the order and cannot be departed from. It will be for practice and custom to emerge that will finally set the seal on what standards are satisfactory.
The hon. Member went on to talk about a subject that is somewhat outside the scope of this order—Northern Ireland Housing Executive rents. As I have said before on a number of occasions, if any right hon. or hon. Member can provide me with information that would convince me that the Housing Executive is charging unreasonable rents, or an unreasonable rent on a specific property, I shall be glad to have it. Having offered that invitation on a number of occasions, I have not yet had one letter or response of any kind from anybody.
I commend the order to the House, and I hope sincerely that at last we have made an attack on the problems of the private rented sector. I hope that people will live in better conditions in what is left of that sector in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 27th June, be approved.

WHITTINGTON HOSPITAL, NORTH LONDON

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

2.1 a.m.

Mr. Michael O'Halloran: I am pleased to be able to raise the subject of the Whittington hospital tonight. The Whittington, one of North London's best known hospitals, is basically three hospitals in one, being divided by two major roads. It was built more than 100 years ago. During those years it has served the people of Islington, Hornsey and North Camden well. It is


also a designated university hospital giving tuition and careers to students from all over the world. It comprises 41 wards, about 900 beds and more than 2,000 staff, and it has its own academic centre.
Today there is general demoralisation among staff. There is an atrocious standard of maintenance. Being a regular visitor to the hospital, and once a patient, I have seen the rapid decline. Over the past four or five years, less than one ward has been repainted per year. There is no proper wall-washing programme. At the present rate of progress, wards would be painted once every 50 years. Some wards still have only one toilet, and again there are some with no wall lights. No wards have been programmed for a proper upgrading in the current year. The Whittington suffers from decades of neglect and planning blight.
I could go on and on. It is no wonder that both staff and patients question what is happening at the Whittington. Major surgery to the buildings of the Whittington and the spending of many millions of pounds is essential. The appalling conditions, even in the short term, mean that whole departments and specialties will be lost, wards will have to close and the people of Islington and Hornsey will suffer.
We have already temporarily lost neurosurgery, and I understand that other departments are under threat because of the poor physical conditions in which they are housed. Mothers say that the care and treatment they get in the Whittington obstetrics department are as good as anywhere, but they cannot stand the physical conditions and vote with their feet. Bed use is less than 50 per cent., and the future of our North London school of midwifery is threatened.
Islington has been classed as a deprived area and is in partnership with central Government. Much has been done in housing to overcome this deprivation, and we wish to have the same effort put in to ending the deprived standard of our hospital services.
Regretfully, I am informed that relations between the Camden and Islington area health authority and the North East Thames regional health authority are among the worst in the country. There is little co-operation or agreement and the sufferers are the local people and the

patients. Such a state of affairs must in no way be allowed to continue. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will investigate the situation fully.
Various plans, proposals and counter-proposals may be in mind for the Whittington, but I feel that the time has now come for the fullest consultation at the highest level. Definitive plans must be put forward for a new district general hospital for Islington and Hornsey. I want to see the present level of services retained and the return of the neurosurgical department, which has been temporarily transferred to the Royal Free at Hampstead. This transfer has contributed greatly to the present demoralisation in the Whittington and was a result of lack of maintenance and strong management.
Islington and Hornsey—part of the district—have twice the population of each of the Camden districts in the area, but less than one-third of the area's total resources. In the revised strategic plan, the area suggests that 460 local acute beds should be provided for in-patients. North East Thames region suggests 527 beds; the district management team says 546 beds. Islington community health council suggests that 663 beds will be required in a new complex. Its studies are based on the impending rationalisation proposed for the City and East London area and declining use of University College hospital by Islington patients, plus proposed changes in the Enfield and Haringey area which will make the people of Tottenham increasingly dependent on the services of the Whittington. All these combined underline the need for any development to be at least 650 local acute beds, bearing in mind in addition the increased number of patients that will be attracted to a new Whittington hospital.
The people of Islington and Hornsey are demanding that hospital services of an adequate level and standard to serve their entire population be provided so that patients can exercise a genuine choice, and that they should not be left to the mercy of the strong interests of the teaching hospitals which corner resources.
One of the main points of reorganisation was to bring the teaching hospitals under the control of area health authorities, but in Camden and Islington those strong interests continue to prevail so that


the teaching tail is wagging the service dog, to the detriment of local people. Local people will not be satisfied with becoming an adjunct or being used as a "piece of elastic" to solve problems of resource allocation and bed distribution with which the area health authority is not prepared to come to terms. In its revised strategic plan, the AHA states that
It has no power to compel the medical schools to accept less than they request nor any ability to disprove their bed demands.
Local people will not accept reductions in standards or levels of service below their needs to satisfy outdated patterns of medical teaching. The Whittington has long provided teaching and patients to University College hospital students—and this should be increased by the transfer of academic units to the Whittington. If reductions below service needs are seriously considered—they are seriously proposed—there will be a fight to save the Royal Northern hospital, the other arm of our district general hospital services, which will rival the present struggle to save the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of state visited the Whittington hospital just prior to Christmas last year. He cannot be impressed with everything he saw—a run-down building and two major roads running through, with not even a connecting underground tunnel or bridge to get from one to the other—and I am sure he fully realised this.
I hope that in the time available I have outlined not a picture of gloom but the stark reality of the serious problems at the Whittington.
I should like to pay tribute to all the staff who, out of sheer dedication, do a magnificent job under very difficult circumstances. I hope that the Minister can reassure me and my constituents, the many people who avail themselves of the services at the Whittington and the staff who work there that the utmost priority will be given to building a new district general hospital for Islington and Hornsey.

2.10 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Roland Moyle): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr.

O'Halloran) for giving me the opportunity to discuss a number of problems relating to the Health Service which are a microcosm of the complex choices that have to be faced by health authorities and Ministers responsible for social services.
I have no hesitation at the outset in commending the considerable activity of my hon. Friend in continually bringing before the House the many problems of Islington's health. If we are not fully aware of the problems, it is certainly not because of any inactivity on his part.
I start by placing the problems in a wider context. We have had a difficult economic situation for the past three or four years and we have had to place controls on public expenditure. Even so, we have sought to protect the National Health Service from the full impact of these restrictions and our record in maintaining real growth in the resources available to the Health Service has been good. Every year, even in the most difficult circumstances, we have had a real growth in resources to the NHS, but that is not to say that those resources must be used in maintaining the status quo at all times in all places.
The North-East Thames regional health authority has taken the view that the rationalisation of services in its inner London areas requires the investment of capital to provide new accommodation around which services can be reorganised and concentrated. In the face of the clear need for the provision of facilities elsewhere this was a sensible decision, which my Department has accepted.
Change is clearly needed. It will take some years to achieve it so that inner city areas such as Islington can have a hospital service which is based on an improved standard of buildings and is more appropriate to the distribution of beds between the various specialties. I take the point that the standard of buildings at present is not good enough.
Turning to the details of the present problems in Islington, there are two major acute hospitals. The Whittington hospital is an amalgamation of three hospitals, Archway, Highgate and St. Mary's. These three hospitals were originally managed by the boards of guardians of three different boroughs, and they were appropriated from the Poor Law organisation in 1930 by the London County Council. At that time there were


more than 2,000 beds and, as one would expect of buildings dating from the nineteenth century, many were in poor repair. The process of integration has been going on since the NHS was founded in 1948, but it is a slow process because of the size of the institutions. In the past 30 years we have brought the hospital to its current size of about 800 beds. It is quite a large hospital by today's standards.
Since the war, medical schools in the centre of London, particularly the University College hospital, have been looking to the Whittington for assistance in teaching problems. Increasing links have been developed between the staffs of UCH and the Whittington and a significant proportion of the teaching of medical students from UCH is undertaken at the Whittington. This is likely to increase.
As my hon. Friend has said, the Whittington hospital is now regarded as a university hospital although it does not have a medical school of its own. The fact that it is so regarded is a considerable tribute to the staff at the Whittington, whose skills are the main argument for teaching medical students at the hospital. As I have indicated and as my hon. Friend has argued, it is not the standard of the buildings that attracts us to use the hospital in that way. The reputation of the staff is high and they have published a text book of medicine under the hospital's name.
There have been some recent developments. There is a new clinical sciences block and a new psychiatric unit has recently been built. There has been a continuous programme of ward upgrading.
The other acute hospital in Islington is the Royal Northern, which has about 180 beds. It has a reputation for postgraduate teaching. In common with the Whittington hospital, there have been some redevelopments since the war with the addition of new out-patient facilities, X-ray departments and theatres. A new nurses' home has been built.
The two hospitals are very near to each other and they undertake much the same type of work, but perhaps on differing scales. Within the district there is the City of London maternity hospital, which provides facilities which are replicated at the Whittington. I think everybody agrees that in maternity services at

least there are too many beds. As it is important for the Camden and Islington area health authority to obtain the maximum value for money spent on its acute services, to switch surplus resources into longer-stay hospitals, especially for the elderly, the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, and to improve poor facilities in many of the wards of the two acute hospitals, there have been lengthy discussions between the area health authority and the regional health authority.
At present there is no agreement on the strategy to solve the problems that I have outlined about redeploying resources. It is fair to say that both authorities are working constructively towards reaching agreement on the best way to develop the services. It is because the agreements are still going forward that I cannot give firm objectives for acute beds that will eventually be required in the Camden and Islington area.
The position has been helped by the agreed priority on all sides that there has to be a major capital start in Camden and Islington. It is the area health authority's policy that a scheme at the Whittington, around which the bulk of the population lives, should have the highest priority. The hospital has, therefore, a long-term future. The present intention is to turn it into the district general hospital for Islington. I think that in the not-too-distant future that will be the answer to the problems of poor fabric to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
University College also has its problems. That is where the bulk of the teaching of medical students is taking place and where adequate facilities are needed to support the training of doctors for the future, upon which the Camden and Islington and the whole Health Service depend.
It is not clear at present what form the new development at the Whittington should take. There will be a development at the Whittington. That will be to the advantage of Islington, and that is the general desire. Any new development must be phased. As a result of the problems of demolition, there will be the decanting of patients from existing wards into other wards. There will be construction. Action is already taking place to improve some of the older operating theatres at the Whittington.
Following my recent discussion with my hon. Friend and representatives of Islington community health council, I am aware that the local community wishes to have neuro-surgery included as a high priority in the new development at the hospital. There is a whole range of problems involving paediatrics, ophthalmology and otorhinolaryngology. The decisions must be a matter for discussion and consultation. Some of them must be taken in a wider context.
The problems of Islington cannot all be solved in merely a local context, because they necessarily affect the provision of services in contiguous areas. The North-East Thames regional health authority and the North-West Thames regional health authority have the provision of neuro-surgical facilities under consideration. It may be that the decision of one regional health authority will affect decisions to be taken by the other.
That is particularly so in the case of the regional neuro-surgical unit for the western sector of the region. My Department has a submission from the North-East Thames regional health authority, which wishes to establish a permanent unit at the Royal Free hospital. That is a matter of great difficulty. I do not think that it can be resolved quickly.
When I met the Islington community health council last week, I said that before any final decision was taken I should be prepared to see the delegation from Islington again. My hon. Friend will be aware that discussions are to be renewed, under the chairmanship of senior officials, on the practicability of reproviding an Elizabeth Garrett Anderson facility at the Whittington hospital.
Many of these questions will be resolved through the National Health Service planning system which was introduced in 1976. That seeks to devolve the maximum amount of responsibility for deciding the way in which the pattern of health services should be developed to health authorities within the context of guidelines issued annually by my Department. The planning system is also designed to ensure that local circumstances are brought into the picture so that services can develop not only in ways which encourage the most effective use of resources but for the benefit of those who use them.
There are two levels of planning—strategic and operational. The strategic is based on decisions fundamentally arrived at by the regional health authority and is projected over a term of about 10 years. The operational plan is projected over a shorter period of about three years and aims to put the strategic plan into operation during that period.
Operational plans are rolled forward annually and originate at district level. They are then incorporated into the area health authority's plans. Strategic plans are formulated at area health authority level, with an input from the district. They are then blessed by the region and combined into the regional strategic plan, which takes account of all the strategic plans for the areas. The region is then responsible for discussing it with my Department.
The planning system needs to be related to the specific context of the Camden and Islington area health authority. The area strategic plan has not yet been accepted in its entirety by the regional health authority. That has had an impact on the resolution of many of the difficult issues currently facing the area. Many of these problems—such as the siting of the neurosurgical unit and relations between Whittington and University College hospitals—are inevitably inextricably intermingled. There is a clear need for an overall strategy for the area. Only in that way can the various problems that I have outlined be analysed rationally and collectively and solutions reached.
We must await agreement between the regional and area health authorities on the area's strategy before decisions on the new hospital facilities can be taken. Nevertheless, I hope I have indicated that there are strong grounds for believing that the future of the Whittington hospital—the key hospital mentioned by my hon. Friend—is assured in the area, that developments will take place and that they will be substantial and important.
When we come to consider the regional strategic plan early next year, I and my Department will certainly bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend and ensure that they are taken into account.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Two o'clock.

WALES BILL

Division No. 288 [See c. 608]

[Division No. 288]
AYES
[6.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hayman, Mrs Helene


Adley, Robert
Cryer, Bob
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Allaun, Frank
Cunningham, Dr. J. (Whiteh)
Heffer, Eric S.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dalyell, Tam
Heseltine, Michael


Anderson, Donald
Davidson, Arthur
Higgins, Terence L.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hodgson, Robin


Armstrong, Ernest
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Holland, Philip


Arnold, Tom
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hordern, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Deakins, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Howell Ralph (North Norfolk)


Atkinson, David (Bournemouth, East)
Dempsey, James
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Dewar, Donald
Huckfield, Les


Banks, Robert
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Dormand, J. D.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bean, R. E.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bell, Ronald
Drayson, Burnaby
Hunter, Adam


Bendall, Vivian
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Duffy, A. E. P.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Dunlop, John
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Durant, Tony
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eadie, Alex
Janner Greville


Berry, Hon Anthony
Edge, Geoff
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, Sir William
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wandst'd&amp;W'df'd)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Jessel, Toby


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
John, Brynmor


Body, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Evans loan (Aberdare)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Evans, John (Newton)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Eyre, Reginald
Jopling, Michael


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)]
Farr, John
Judd Frank


Bradford, Rev Robert
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Kehett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Brittan, Leon
Flannery, Martin
Kelley, Richard


Brother-ton, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Kerr, Russell


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Fookes, Miss Janet
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Forrester, John
Kinnock, Neil


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Buchan, Norman
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Knight, Mrs Jill


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus
Lamborn, Harry


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Lamond, James


Burden, F. A.
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Lamont, Norman


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fry, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Lawrence, Ivan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Lawson, Nigel


Campbell, Ian
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Lee, John


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Cant, R. B.
Garrett. W. E. (Wallsend)
Lewis, Arthur (Hewham N)


Carmichael, Neil
George, Bruce
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Carson, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Litterick, Tom


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Glyn, Dr Alan
Loveridge, John


Cartwright, John
Golding, John
Loyden, Eddie


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Goodhart, Philip
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Channon, Paul
Gorst, John
McCartney, Hugh


Churchill, W. S.
Gould, Bryan
McCrindle, Robert


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gourlay, Harry
McCusker, H.


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Graham, Ted
McElhone, Frank


Clegg, Walter
Grant, John (Isilngton C)
McKay, Allen


Clemitson, Ivor
Grieve, Percy
MacGregor, John


Cockcroft, John
Griffiths, Eldon
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Grist, Ian
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cohen, Stanley
Grocott, Bruce
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Coleman, Donald
Grylls, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Cope,John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNamara, Kevin


Cormack, Patrick
Hardy, Peter
Madden, Max


Corrie, John
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mahon, Simon


Costain, A. P.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Cowans, Harry
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Marks, Kenneth


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Cronin, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Marten, Neil


Crowder, F. P.
Hawkins, Paul
Mates, Michael







Marther, Carol
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stoddart, David


Maude, Angus
Price, William (Rugby)
Stokes, John


Mawby, Ray
Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Maxwell Hyslop, Robin
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maynard, Miss Joan
Richardson, Miss Jo
Strang, Gavin


Meacher, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Ridsdale, Julian
Swain, Thomas


Mikardo, Ian
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tapsell, Peter


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Mills, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Moate, Roger
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Tebbit, Norman


Molloy, William
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Molyneaux, James
Robinson, Geoffrey
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Montgomery, Fergus
Roderick, Caerwyn
Tierney, Sydney


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Tilley, John


More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Tinn, James


Morgan, Geraint
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Torney, Tom


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rooker, J. W.
Trotter, Neville


Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Roper, John
Tuck, Raphael


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Urwin, T. W.


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Ross, William (Londonderry)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Morton, George
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Rowlands, Ted
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Ryman, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Neave, Airey
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wakeham, John


Nelson, Anthony
Sedgemore, Brian
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Neubert, Michael
Sever, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Newens, Stanley
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Noble. Mike
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Ward, Michael


Normanton, Tom
Shepherd, Colin
Warren, Kenneth


Nott, John
Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Watkins, David


Onslow, Cranley
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Weitzman, David


Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Wells, John


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Silverman, Julius
White, James (Pollok)


Osborn, John
Silvester, Fred
Whitehead, Phillip


Ovenden, John
Skeet, T. H. H.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Padley, Walter
Skinner, Dennis
Whitlock, William


Page, Rt Hon R Graham (Crosby)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Wiggin, Jerry


Page, Richard (Workington)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Paisley, Rev Ian
Snape, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Parkinson, Cecil
Spearing, Nigel
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Parry, Robert
Speed, Keith
Winterton, Nicholas


Pattie, Geoffrey
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Woodall, Alec


Percival, Ian
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Peylon, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain
Young, David (Bolton E)


Pink, R. Bonner
Stanbrook, Ivor



Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Stanley, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Prescott, Jonn
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Mr. Alt Bates and


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Mr. Jim Marshall




NOES


Alison, Michael
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Irving Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
James, David


Baker, Kenneth
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Beith, A. J.
Ford, Ben
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Benyon, W.
Forman, Nigel
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)


Blaker, Peter
Freud, Clement
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Kiltedder, James


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ginsburg, David
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Bradley, Tom
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Knox, David


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Goodlad, Alastair
Latham, Michael (Melton)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Le Marchant, Spencer


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Carlisle, Mark
Gray, Hamish
Lloyd, Ian


Carter, Ray
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Luard, Evan


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Luce, Richard


Corbett, Robin
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Crawford, Douglas
Hampson, Dr Keith
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannam, John
MacCormick, Iain


Critchley, Julian
Haselhurst, Alan
Macfarlane, Neil


Crouch, David
Hastings, Stephen
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Hayhoe, Barney
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Heat[...], Rt Hon Edward
Maclennan, Robert


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Henderson, Douglas
Madel, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hicks, Robert
Magee, Bryan


Dunnett, Jack
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Hooson, Emlyn
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Horam, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Miscampbell, Norman


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Falrgrieve, Russell
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Faulds, Andrew
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Monro, Hector


Fisher. Sir Nigel
Hurd, Douglas
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)







Mudd, David
Sainsbury, Tim
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Newton, Tony
Sandelson, Neville
Tomlinson, John


Oakes, Gordon
Scott, Nicholas
Townsend, Cyril D.


Ogden, Eric
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Viggers, Peter


O'Halloran, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Palmer, Arthur
Shersby, Michael
Watkinson, John


Pardoe, John
Sims, Roger
Watt, Hamish


Parker, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Weatherill, Bernard


Perry, Ernest
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Weetch, Ken


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Smith, Timothy John(Ashfield)
Welsh, Andrew


Prior, Rt Hon James
Spence, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Raison, Timothy
Stainton, Keith
Wigley, Dafydd


Rathbone, Tim
Stallard, A. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Steel, Rt Hon David
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Reid, George
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Younger, Hon George


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)



Rifkind, Malcolm
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mr. Charles Morrison and


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Thompson, George
Mr. Tom Ellis.


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Division List No. 289 [See c. 608]

Division No. 290 [See c. 642]

Division No. 291 [See c. 669]

Division No. 292 [See c. 669]

Division No. 293 [See c. 669]

Division No. 294 [See c. 684]

Division No. 295 [See c. 685]